AIN aKp 



dSlBLE • 



Edgar, C.Beall 










LIBRARY OF CONGRESS. 



Shelf. 3-1 



UNITED STATES OF AMERICA. 









■ 



■ 



a- * ' 



.- I 



>"■*! 









-i ; 'y 



■ 






?A : I 






■ 


















fi# 



THE 



BRAIN AND THE BIBLE; 



OR, 



THE CONFLICT 



BETWEEN 



MENTAL SCIENCE AND THEOLOGY. 



EDGAR C. BEALL. 



WITH A PREFACE BY 

ROBERT G-. INGERSOLL. 



"Truth wears no mask; bows at no human shrine; seeks neither place 
nor applause : she only asks a hearing. Let no man fear corruption from her 
teaching, though new; neither expect good from error, though long believed." 



- 



CINCINNATI : 
PUBLISHED BY EDGAE C. BEAL 
65 West Fourth Street 

1882. 



l ■- M :^ 



3 ldj 



775 



COPYRIGHTED, 1881, 

By EDGAR C. BEALL. 



CONTENTS 



Dedication, ..... 

Preface by R G. Ingersoll, 
Author's Preface, .... 

Introduction, .... 

Chapter I. — The Pilot of the Passions, 
II. — The Fall of Man, 
III. — Change of Heart, 
IV. — The Plan of Salvation, 
V. — Is Nature Self-Existent? 
VI. — The Design Argument, 
VII. — Joseph Cook's "Scientific Theism," 
VIII. — The Correlation Argument, 
IX. — The Logic of Jesuitism, . 
X. — Popular Objections to Infidelity, 
XI. — Our Substitute for Christianity, 



page. 

V 

vii 

xxiii 

1 

46 

67 

84 

113 

127 

140 

159 

174 

199 

217 

243 



(Hi) 



TO ALL 

FRIENDS OF HUMANITY, 

WHO DO NOT FEAR TO DISCOVER IN 

NATURE 

THE ONLY CAUSE AND CURE 
OF ALL THAT STANDS IN THE WAY OF OUR 

HIGHEST GOOD, 

I DEDICATE THIS VOLUME. 



PREFACE BY ROBERT G. DsTGERSOLL. 



This book, written by a brave and honest 
man, is filled with brave and honest thoughts. 
The arguments it presents can not be answered 
by all the theologians in the world. The au- 
thor is convinced that the universe is natural, 
that man is naturally produced, and that there 
is a necessary relation between character and 
brain. He sees, and clearly sees, that the theo- 
logical explanation of phenomena is only a plausi- 
ble absurdity, and, at best, as great a mystery 
as it tries to solve. I thank the man who 
breaks, or tries to break, the chains of custom, 
creed, and church, and gives, in plain, courage- 
ous words, the product of his brain. 

It is almost impossible to investigate any 
subject without somewhere touching the religious 

(vii) 



viii PREFACE BY ROBERT G. INGERSOLL. 

prejudices of ourselves or others. Most people 
judge of the truth of a proposition by the con- 
sequences upon some preconceived opinion. Cer- 
tain things they take as truths, and with this 
little standard in their minds, they measure all 
other theories. If the new facts do not agree 
with the standard, they are instantly thrown 
away, because it is much easier to dispose of 
the new facts than to reconstruct an entire phi- 
losophy. 

A few years ago, when men began to say 
that character could be determined by the form, 
quantity, and quality of the brain, the religious 
world rushed to the conclusion that this fact 
might destroy what they were pleased to call 
the free moral agency of man. They admitted 
that all things in the physical world were links 
in the infinite chain of causes and effects, and 
that not one atom of the material universe 
could, by any possibility, be entirely exempt 
from the action of every other. They insisted 
that, if the motions of the spirit — the thoughts, 



PREFACE BY ROBERT G. INGERSOLL. ix 

dreams, and conclusions of the brain, were as 
necessarily produced as stones and stars, virtue 
became necessity, and morality the result of 
forces capable of mathematical calculation. In 
other words, they insisted that, while there were 
causes for all material phenomena, a something 
called the Will sat enthroned above all law, 
and dominated the phenomena of the intellectual 
world. They insisted that man was free; that 
he controlled his brain ; that he was responsible 
for thought as well as action ; that the intellec- 
tual world of each man was a universe in which 
his will was king. They were afraid that phre- 
nology might, in some way, interfere with the 
scheme of salvation, or prevent the eternal tor- 
ment of some errino- soul. 

It is insisted that man is free, and is re- 
sponsible, because he knows right from wrong. 
But the compass does not navigate the ship; 
neither does it, in any way, of itself, determine 
the direction that is taken. When winds and 
waves are too powerful, the compass is of no 



x PREFACE BY ROBERT G. INGERSOLL. 

importance. The pilot may read it correctly, 
and may know the direction the ship ought to 
take, but the compass is not a force. So men, 
blown by the tempests of passion, may have the 
intellectual conviction that they should go an- 
other way ; but, of what use, of what force, is 
the conviction ? 

Thousands of persons have gathered curious 
statistics for the purpose of showing that man 
is absolutely dominated by his surroundings. 
By these statistics is discovered what is called 
"the law of average. " Thev show that there 
are about so many suicides in London every 
year, so many letters misdirected at Paris, so 
many men uniting themselves in marriage with 
women older than themselves in Belgium, so 
many burglaries to one murder in France, or so 
many persons driven insane by religion in the 
United States. It is asserted that these facts 
conclusively show that man is acted upon ; that, 
behind each thought, each dream, is the efficient 



PREFACE BY ROBERT G. INGERSOLL. xi 

cause, and that the doctrine of moral responsi- 
bility has been destroyed by statistics. 

But, does the fact that about so many 
crimes are committed on the average, in a given 
population, or that so many any things are done, 
prove that there is no freedom in human action ? 

Suppose a population of ten thousand per- 
sons; and suppose, further, that they are free, 
and that they have the usual wants of mankind. 
Is it not reasonable to say that they would act 
in some way ? They certainly would take meas- 
ures to obtain food, clothing, and shelter. If 
these people differed in intellect, in surround- 
ings, in temperament, in strength, it is reason- 
able to suppose that all would not be equally 
successful. Under such circumstances, may we 
not safely infer that, in a little while, if the sta- 
tistics were properly taken, a law of average 
would appear? In other words, free people 
would act; and, being different in mind, body, 
and circumstances, would not all act exactly 
alike. All would not be alike acted upon. The 



xii PREFACE BY ROBERT G. INGERSOLL. 

deviations from what might be thought wise, or 
right, would sustain such a relation to time and 
numbers that they could be expressed by a law 
of average. 

If this is true, the law of average does not 
establish necessity. 

But, in my supposed case, the people, after 
all, are not free. They have wants. They are 
under the necessity of feeding, clothing, and 
sheltering themselves. To the extent of their 
actual wants, they are not free. Every limita- 
tion is a master. Every finite being is a pris- 
oner, and no man has ever yet looked above or 
beyond the prison walls. Our highest conception 
of liberty is to be free from the dictation of fel- 
low prisoners. 

To the extent that we have wants, we are 
not free. To the extent that we do not have 
wants, we do not act. 

If we are responsible for our thoughts, we 
ought not only to know how they are formed, 
but we ought to form them. If we are the 



PREFACE BY ROBERT G. INGERSOLL. xiii 

masters of our own minds, we ought to be able 
to tell what we are going to think at any future 
time. 

Evidently, the food of thought — its very 
warp and woof — is furnished through the medium 
of the senses. If we open our eyes, we can not 
help seeing. If we do not stop our ears, we 
can not help hearing. If any thing touches us, 
we feel it. The heart beats in spite of us. 
The lungs supply themselves with air without 
our knowledge. The blood pursues its old ac- 
customed rounds, and all our senses act without 
our leave. As the heart beats, so the brain 
thinks. The will is not its king. As the blood 
flows, as the lungs expand, as the eyes see, as 
the ears hear, as the flesh is sensitive to touch, 
so the brain thinks. 

I had a dream, in which I debated a 
question with a friend. I thought to myself: 
"This is a dream, and yet I can not tell what 
my opponent is going to say. Yet, if it is a 
dream, I am doing the thinking for both sides, 



xiv PREFACE BY ROBERT G. INGERSOLL. 

and, therefore, ought to know in advance what 
my friend will urge." But, in a dream, there 
is some one who seems to talk to us. Our own 
brain tells us news, and presents an unexpected 
thought. Is it not possible that each brain is a 
field, where all the senses sow the seeds of 
thought? Some of these fields are mostly bar- 
ren, poor, and hard, producing only worthless 
weeds ; and some grow sturdy oaks and stately 
palms ; and some are like the tropic world, 
where plants and trees and vines seem royal 
children of the soil and sun. 

Nothing seems more certain than that the 
capacity of a human being depends, other things 
being equal, upon the amount, form, and quality 
of his brain. We also know that health, dispo- 
sition, temperament, occupation, food, surround- 
ings, ancestors, quality, form, and texture of the 
brain, determine what we call character. Man 
is, collectively and individually, what his sur- 
roundings have made him. Nations differ from 
each other as greatly as individuals in the same 



PREFACE BY ROBERT G. INGER&OLL. xv 

nation. Nations depend upon soil, climate, geo- 
graphical position, and countless other facts. 
Shakespeare would have been impossible without 
the climate of England. There is a direct rela- 
tion between Hamlet and the Gulf Stream. Dr. 
Draper has shown that the great desert of Sa- 
hara made negroes possible in Africa. If the 
Caribbean Sea had been a desert, negroes might 
have been produced in America. 

Are the effects of climate upon man neces- 
sary effects? Is it possible for man to escape 
them ? Is he responsible for what he does as a 
consequence of his surroundings? Is the mind 
dependent upon causes ? Does it act without 
cause? Is every thought a necessity? Can 
man choose without reference to any quality in 
the thing chosen? 

No one will blame Mr. Brown or Mr. Jones 
for not writing like Shakespeare. Should they 
be blamed for not acting like Christ? We say 
that a great painter has genius. Is it not pos- 
sible that a certain genius is required to be 



xvi PREFA CE BY ROBERT G. INGERSOLL. 



what is called "good"? All men can not be 
great. All men can not be successful. Can all 
men be kind? Can all men be honest? 

It may be that a crime appears terrible in 
proportion as we realize its consequences. If 
this is true, morality may depend largely upon 
the imagination. Man can not have imagination 
at will ; that, certainly, is a natural product. 
And yet, a man's action may depend largely 
upon the want of imagination. One man may 
feel that he really wishes to kill another. He 
may make preparations to commit the deed; 
and yet, his imagination may present such pic- 
tures of horror and despair; he may so vividly 
see the widow clasping the mangled corpse; he 
may so plainly hear the cries and sobs of or- 
phans, while the clods fall upon the coffin, that 
his hand is stayed. Another, lacking imagina- 
tion, thirsting only for revenge, seeing nothing 
beyond the accomplishment of the deed, buries, 
with blind and thoughtless hate, the dagger in 
his victim's heart. 



PREFACE BY ROBERT G. IXGEKSOLL. xvii 

Morality, for the most part, is the verdict 
•>f the majority. This verdict depends upon the 
intelligence of the people ; and the intelligence 
depends upon the amount, form, and quality of 
the average brain. 

If the mind depends upon certain organs 
for the expression of its thought, does it have 
thought independently of those organs ? Is there 
any mind without brain? Does the mind think 
apart from the brain, and then express its 
thought through the instrumentality of the 
brain? Theologians tell us that insanity is not 
a disease of the soul, but of the brain ; that the 
soul is perfectly untouched ; but that the instru- 
ment with which, and through which, it mani- 
fests itself, is impaired. The fact, however, 
seems to be, that the mind, the something that is 
the man, is unconscious of the fact that any thing 
is out of order in the brain. Insane people in- 
sist that they are sane. 

If we should find a locomotive off the track, 
and the engineer using the proper appliances to 



xviii PREFACE BY ROBERT G. INGERSOLL. 

put it back, we would say that the machine is 
out of order, but the engineer is not. But, if 
we found the locomotive upside down, with 
wheels in air, and the engineer insisting that it 
was on the track, and never running better, we 
would then conclude that something was wrong, 
not only with the locomotive, but with the en- 
gineer. 

We are told in medical books of a girl, 
who, at about the age of nine years, was at- 
tacked with some cerebral disease. When she 
recovered, she had forgotten all she ever knew, 
and had to relearn the alphabet, and the names 
of her parents and kindred. In this abnormal 
state, she was not a good girl ; in the normal 
state, she was. After having lived in the sec- 
ond state for several years, she went back to 
the first; and all she had learned in the second 
state was forgotten, and all she had learned in 
the first was remembered. I believe she changed 
once more, and died in the abnormal state. In 
which of these states was she responsible? 



PREFA CE BY ROBERT G. INGERSOLL. xix 

Were her thoughts and actions as free in one 
as in the other? It may be contended that, in 
her diseased state, the mind or soul could not 
correctly express itself. If this is so, it follows 
that, as no one is perfectly healthy, and as no 
one has a perfect brain, it is impossible that 
the soul should ever correctly express itself. Is 
the soul responsible for the defects of the brain ? 
Is it not altogether more rational to say, that 
what we call mind depends upon the brain, and 
that the child — mind, inherits the defects of its 
parent — brain ? 

Are certain physical conditions necessary to 
the production of what we call virtuous actions? 
Is it possible for any thing to be produced with- 
out what we call cause, and, if the cause was 
sufficient, was it not necessarily produced? Do 
not most people mistake for freedom the right 
to examine their own chains? If morality de- 
pends upon conditions, should it not be the task 
of the great and good to discover such condi- 
tions? May it not be possible so to understand 



xx PRE FA CE BY R OBER T G. INGERSOLL. 

the brain that we can stop producing crimi- 
nals? 

It may be insisted that there is something 
produced by the brain besides thought — a some- 
thing that takes cognizance of thoughts — a some- 
thing that weighs, compares, reflects and pro- 
nounces judgment. This something can not find 
the origin of itself. Does it exist independently 
of the brain? Is it merely a looker-on? If it 
is a product of the brain, then its power, per- 
ception, and judgment depend upon the quanti- 
ty, form, and quality of the brain. 

Man, including all his attributes, must have 
been necessarily produced, and the product was 
the child of conditions. 

Most reformers have infinite confidence in 
creeds, resolutions, and laws. They think of 
the common people as raw material, out of 
which they propose to construct institutions and 
governments, like mechanical contrivances, where 
each person will stand for a cog, rope, wheel, 
pulley, bolt, or fuel, and the reformers will be 



PREFACE BY ROBERT G. INGERSOLL. xxi 

the managers and directors. They forget that 
these cogs and wheels have opinions of their 
own ; that they fall out with other cogs, and re- 
fuse to turn with other wheels ; that the pulleys 
and ropes have ideas peculiar to themselves, and 
delight in mutiny and revolution. These re- 
formers have theories that can only be realized 
when other people have none. 

Some time, it will be found that people can 
be changed only by changing their surroundings. 
It is alleged that, at least ninety-five per cent 
of the criminals transported from England to 
Australia and other penal colonies, became good 
and useful citizens in a new world. Free from 
former associates and associations, from the ne- 
cessities of a hard, cruel, and competitive civil- 
ization, they became, for the most part, honest 
people. This immense fact throws more light 
upon social questions than all the theories of 
the world. All people are not able to support 
themselves. They lack intelligence, industry, 
cunning — in short, capacity. They are continu- 



xxii PREFACE BY ROBERT G. INGERSOLL. 

ally falling by the way. In the midst of plenty, 
they are hungry. Larceny is born of want and 
opportunity. In passion's storm, the will is 
wrecked upon the reefs and rocks of crime. 

The complex, tangled web of thought and 
dream, of perception and memory, of imagina- 
tion, and judgment, of wish, and will, and want 
— the woven wonder of a life — has never yet 
been raveled back to simple threads. 

Shall we not become charitable and just, 
when we know that every act is but condition's 
fruit; that Nature, with her countless hands, 
scatters the seeds of tears and crimes — of every 
virtue and of every joy ; that all the base and 
vile are victims of the Blind, and that the good 
and great have, in the lottery of life, by chance 
or fate, drawn heart and brain? 

Robert G. Ingersoll. 
Washington, Dec. 21, 1881. 



AUTHOR'S PREFACE. 



" The purpose of my writing is to make men anthro- 
pologians instead of theologians ; man-lovers instead of God- 
lovers; students of this world instead of candidates for 
the next; self-reliant citizens of the earth instead of sub- 
servient and wily ministers of a celestial and terrestrial 
monarchy." Feuerbach. 

THE mission of Infidelity is not to destroy 
any thing that is good, but simply by the 
light of science to discover the one sublime Tem- 
ple of Truth, in search of which, groping and 
guessing, bruised and bleeding, humanity has 
wandered through all the long unhappy night 
of the past. Instead of wishing to undermine 
the principles of virtue, we seek only to make 
them more secure. And so far from aiming to 
blot out the religious nature of man, we wish 
only to purify and intensify it by directing it to 
its legitimate objects of flesh and blood. 

(xxiii) 



xxiv A TJTHORS PREFA CE. 

He who can find no incentive to do right 
for the love of man, is incapable of sincere de- 
votion to any noble ideal. And he who has no 
fear of human retribution, or hatred of wrong 
for its own blackness, can have but little fear 
of' Hell. Hence, instead of an absolute, con- 
ditionless Deity, of whose existence there is no 
evidence, we regard Humanity as the only true 
object our sense of duty toward which should 
restrain us from evil and impel us to purity of 
life. 

Nothing can be more sacred than the happi- 
ness of mankind, and no book sincerely written 
in defense of such an object should need an 
apology. But the Church, never willing or able 
to meet logic with logic, denies that Infidels aim 
to make the world better, and, to give color to 
this charge, defines Freethought as a synonym 
for all that is vile, and describes as its repre- 
sentatives only the monstrosities and dwarfs to 
which she herself has given birth. As to this, 
and all other objections, we court investigation. 



A UTHORS PRE FA CE. 



All we ask is that the world may be permitted 
to think, and that the problem of our highest 
duty may be submitted to reason. Christians 
should not expect to discover any truth by false 
methods. And no greater mistake can be made 
than that of allowing the feelings to usurp the 
place of judgment. The Roman Catholic is just 
as sure from the voice of his "subjective cog- 
nition " that his creed is the only true one as 
the Protestant is that the Roman Church is the 
" Harlot of Babylon." But if " spiritual dis- 
cernment " is superior to science, why is there 
so little unanimity of belief? If the "heart" 
is of any value as an authoritative guide, why 
does it present such contradictory evidence ? 
And if the unshaken faith of millions affords 
any ground for an argument, why not accept 
Buddhism, which is believed by almost a third 
of the population of the globe ? He who re- 
pudiates reason as the only torch, can not con- 
sistently deny that the grossest superstition may 
be the true religion. 



AUTHORS PREFACE. 



However, while rejecting the solutions of- 
fered by theology, the true Infidel is far from 
presuming to unravel the ultimate mystery of 
the Absolute. " His refusal of the creative hy- 
pothesis," says Tyndall, " is less an assertion of 
knowledge, than a protest against the assumption of 
knowledge which must long, if not forever, lie 
beyond us, and the claim to which is the source 
of manifold confusion upon earth." Moreover, it 
should not be supposed that wherever Science is 
mute, the garrulity of Faith is necessarily true. 
Our inability to establish an absolute negative, 
by no means renders the affirmative certain ; and 
as to the question of Theism, the burden of 
proof falls wholly upon the Church. 

All forms of argument employed to defend 
the dogmas of the Bible, must, of necessity, be 
within a circle. Hitherto, when closely pressed, 
theologians have exhibited remarkable dexterity 
in shifting from one side of the circle to the 
other, and one of the chief reasons whv the war- 
fare between science and supernaturalism has con- 



A UTHORS PliEFA CE. 



tinuecl so long, is because Infidelity has seldom at- 
tacked both sides of the circle at once. Forced by 
the revelations of modern physics to withdraw her 
lines of defense beyond the material world, the 
Church now seeks refuge in the supposed un- 
fathomable mysteries of mind. It is to this field 
of investigation that I wish especially to call at- 
tention, and with an earnest desire to promote 
the highest interests not only of those who live 
to-day, but also of the millions yet unborn, I 
offer this book as a humble contribution to the 

sacred Cause of Humanitv. 

Edgar C. Beall. 

Cincinnati, Ohio, December 1 1881. 



INTRODUCTION. 



"This is truth, though at enmity with the philosophy of 
ages." — Gall. 

" Die einfachsten Wahrheiten sind es gerade, auf die der Mensch 
immer erst am spdtesten kommt." — Feuerbach. 

11 Der Stoff in seiner Gesammtheit ist die A lies gebdrende und Alles 
wieder in sick zurucknehmende Mutter alles Seienden." — Buchner. 

FIST the infancy of humanity, the intellectual 
■*■ horizon was an unbroken gloom. The inex- 
plicable every-where suggested the supernatural. 
The orb of day in his majestic march, the va- 
riable moon, and the serene stars, all seemed 
endowed with life and thought, while the voices 
of the genii echoed from rocks and clouds, and 
from wind and wave. 

Although the air was filled with mystery, 
investigation was discouraged. To account for 
the miraculous by natural agencies was deemed 
an indignity to the gods. Science slumbered, 

(1) 



THE BRAIN AND THE BIBLE. 



and for many dark and weary years the great 
problems of life and happiness remained un- 
touched. Anatomy and physiology were un- 
known. Physical disease was held to be one of 
the dispensations of Providence, while the realm 
of thought seemed directly linked with a spirit 
world. Temptations to commit crime were sup- 
posed to be suggested by Satan, while the dis- 
position to be pure and good was regarded as 
the inspiration of Divine Grace. However, these 
dreams of deities and demons did not satisfy the 
brave few who have always dared to think, and 
hence the attention of the earliest philosophers 
became directed to a study of the human mind. 
For thousands of years, many of the most 
learned men endeavored to establish some defi- 
nite system of mental science — some classifica- 
tion and analysis of the psychical activities 
which would solve the mystery of human na- 
ture. But, until near the beginning of the pres- 
ent century, scarcely any thing definite was ever 
ascertained respecting the true character of the 



INTRODUCTION. 



mental organization. Theory upon theory was 
proposed, adopted for a while, and subsequently 
rejected. One after another of the great meta- 
physicians rose and refuted the doctrines of his 
predecessors, only to meet the same fate himself 
a few years later. But, it will be asked, why 
did so many seekers fail to discover the truth? 
Simply because of their false methods of inves- 
tigation. They reasoned almost entirely a priori, 
which constantly led them into deeper mysti- 
cism. Each blindly assumed his own conscious- 
ness as the standard of human nature, and oc- 
cupied himself chiefly with the contemplation 
of his own feelings, utterly ignoring the fact 
that all persons do not possess the same devel- 
opment of the mental powers, and that no indi- 
vidual could properly regard his own mind as 
an ideal of perfection, without first establishing 
the true standard with which to compare him- 
self. Of course, every such investigator natur- 
ally evolved a philosophy corresponding simply 
to his own peculiar organization. For example, 



THE BRAIN AND THE BIBLE. 



in the last century, the popular teleologist, Dr. 
Paley, who was evidently endowed with more 
"Veneration" than "Conscientiousness," did not 
admit the existence of an inherent sentiment of 
justice in human nature, but held that virtue 
consists in "the doing good to mankind, in 
obedience to the will of God, and for the sake 
of everlasting happiness." This would be the 
natural expression of a mind in which the self- 
ish propensities are strong, and in which rever- 
ence is more powerful than the love of right for 
its own sake. Looking in upon one's own feel- 
ings with such a combination of faculties, of 
course it would be difficult to form any other 
conception of moral principle. In his " Theory 
of Moral Sentiments" Dr. Adam Smith taught 
that sympathy was probably the source of moral 
approbation. This idea would naturally emanate 
from a mind dominated by "Benevolence." 
Then there were writers who made the desire 
for praise, and various other forms of selfish- 
ness, the basis of all virtue; in teaching which 



INTRODUCTION-, 



they usually betrayed their own deficient sense 
of justice, while Mr. Stewart, Lord Karnes, Dr. 
Brown, and many others, earnestly contended 
for the existence of an inherent love of justice 
independent of any other consideration. Equally 
discordant and chaotic were the opinions respect- 
ing the existence of an inherent sense of beauty; 
some philosophers asserting that the esthetical 
element in the mind was purely factitious, and 
acquired wholly by the post-natal experiences and 
education of the individual. 

Scores of similar examples might be cited to 
show how utterly conflicting and unsatisfactory 
were the speculations regarding man's mental na- 
ture, when, toward the close of the last century, 
the functions of the brain, and the true philoso- 
phy of mind were discovered and made known 
to the world by Dr. Francis Joseph Gall. 

Words would fail to describe the abuse 
and ridicule which were heaped upon this man. 
The Church, with her usual hostility to science, 
suppressed his lectures in Vienna, so that he 



THE BRAIN AND THE BIBLE. 



and his companion and pupil, Dr. Spurzheim, 
were obliged to leave their native country in 
order to continue their investigations. The re- 
sult of their labors, however, has been the es- 
tablishment of the science known as Phrenology 
(a term derived from the Greek words pliren and 
logos, mind and discourse). Dr. Gall's mode of 
investigation was purely a posteriori, or inductive. 
This man, a profoundly learned physician, and 
metaphysician, as was also Dr. Spurzheim, be- 
gan his great life work when a mere schoolboy, 
by noticing the peculiarities of his fellow-pupils, 
and until stricken by death at the age of 
seventy-one, he continued to labor for the per- 
fection of his discoveries. He visited hundreds 
of schools, prisons, hospitals, asylums, and other 
institutions, which afforded him excellent oppor- 
tunities for observing a great many distinct 
types of people, of which all the individuals in 
each class possessed alike some one leading trait 
of character; and by carefully comparing the 
cranial developments of all such persons to 



INTRODUCTION. 



whom he could gain access, he was generally 
able to discover, in each class, a particular con- 
figuration of brain which was equally marked 
in all, and which appeared to be the only pecu- 
liarity which all possessed in common. For ex- 
ample, in the prisons, he noticed that the heads 
of all the thieves were remarkably wide about 
an inch back of the temples, while, in other re- 
spects, they differed as much as any other ciass 
of criminals. All the murderers were remarka- 
ble for width of head just between the ears, 
though differing in other respects, etc., etc. In 
the asylums for the insane, he succeeded also 
very frequently in discovering a peculiar form 
of brain which was common to all who were de- 
ranged upon the same subject. The location of 
the cerebral center named Cautiousness, was dis- 
covered by Dr. Gall at an entertainment where 
he occupied a seat immediately behind a gentle- 
man whose notorious irresolution and timidity 
had obtained for him the nickname Cacadubio. 
Dr. Gall was struck by the extraordinary width 



THE BRAIN AND THE BIBLE. 



of this head at the point known to anatomists 
as the "parietal prominence," situated at the 
extreme upper and hack part of the side head, 
usually about two inches from the tops of the 
ears. Being well acquainted with the man's 
predominant trait, it occurred to the Doctor that 
this part of the head might be the seat of a 
faculty of cautiousness. Accordingly, on return- 
ing home, he examined all his casts, skulls, and 
portraits, of which he had a large collection, and 
in the case of every one whose original he had 
known to be strongly endowed with the faculty 
in question, he observed a great width of head 
at the "parietal prominence. " He next exam- 
ined the heads of a number of his friends and 
others who were remarkable for prudence, ap- 
prehensiveness, etc., and, in every instance, he 
found the same configuration of brain, while in 
all examinations of persons who were deficient 
in this mental quality, he found heads narrow 
in the region of the "parietal prominence. " 
Thousands of observations by later Phrenologists 



INTRODUCTION. 



have demonstrated beyond a doubt the accuracy 
of the discoveiy. By these and similar induc- 
tive methods this man alone succeeded in locat- 
ing twenty-seven of the forty-three centers now 
established; certainlv one of the most remark- 
able labors ever accomplished by any one man. 
Some objectors have declared that it would be 
impossible for one man or one generation of 
men to collect sufficient evidence to establish 
the location of so many cerebral centers ; but 
such critics are obviously unacquainted with the 
requirements of the inductive method. Dr. Gall 
himself made thousands of observations more 
than were strictly necessary to confirm his dis- 
coveries, and the centers localized by his suc- 
cessors have been established by millions of ob- 
servations. If a coin is tossed up five hundred 
times in succession, or even half as many times, 
and it invariably falls upon a particular side, 
we are entirely justified in the conclusion that 
it is "loaded," since it would be impossible for 
such a number of coincidences to be accidental. 



10 THE BRAIN AND THE BIBLE. 

The same principle may be applied to the ques- 
tion of special cerebral developments. If we 
find that all men who possess great physico- 
perceptive intellectuality, with deficient reflective 
power, have, in every instance, foreheads very 
prominent immediately above the eyes, but nar- 
row and retreating in the upper portion ; while 
we observe that all foreheads largely developed 
in the upper portion and depressed in the lower, 
are accompanied by predominant reflective intel- 
lect, we logically infer that the perceptive facul- 
ties depend for their manifestation upon the 
cerebral matter beneath the superciliary ridge, 
and that in the upper part of the forehead are 
located the material substrata of the reflective 
powers. There is no jDOSsibility of evading the 
results of such reasoning. If Phrenology can not 
be demonstrated nothing can be demonstrated. 
Moreover, its leading principles are so simple 
that a child can easily master them, notwith- 
standing which, however, it is a fact that among 
the most learned men comparatively few under- 



INTRODUCTION. 11 



stand even the rudiments of it. At first glance 
this seems almost unaccountable, but there are 
several reasons for it. First, scholars are usu- 
ally very conservative, and disposed to be an- 
tagonistic to every new system of philosophy 
that bears an odor of empiricism, and especially 
if it threatens to subvert the established ideas 
of metaphysics or theology. Second, it is a pe- 
culiarity with the majority of philosophical 
minds, that they will not condescend to examine 
the alphabet of a candidate science, and by 
passing judgment upon its principles before in- 
vestigating its facts, or familiarizing themselves 
with its technicalities, they are almost certain 
to arrive at conclusions exactly in accord with 
their preconceived opinions. Such men try to 
walk before they can crawl, and the result is, 
they accomplish but little in their investigation 
of a subject until they chance to become preju- 
diced in its favor by external influences. Third, 
it must be confessed that none of the phreno- 
logical treatises have ever been presented in the 



12 THE BRAIN AND THE BIBLE. 

best manner to facilitate the stuclv of the science. 
From the time when Drs. Gall and Spurzheim 
published their first books on the functions of 
the brain, to the present day, it has been cus- 
tomary to indicate the locations of the cerebral 
centers by illustrations which, to persons unac- 
quainted with the subject, often convey the im- 
pression that the centers always exhibit visible 
and tangible protuberances upon the surface of 
the cranium ; than which, however, nothing could 
be more erroneous. By the term cerebral "cen- 
ter," or "organ," as Phrenologists usually call 
it, is meant simply that portion of the gray or 
convoluted brain substance the action of which 
constitutes what is understood by a mental fac- 
ulty. All of the centers now regarded as estab- 
lished, have received names which are used al- 
most synonymously to designate either special 
parts of the brain, or their manifestations which 
we call mental faculties, and are, for convenience, 
written with large initials to distinguish them, 
as referring to individual faculties, from the 



INTRODUCTION. 13 



manifestations which proceed from different cen- 
ters acting in combination. One of the most 
plausible objections ever made against Phrenol- 
ogy, is based upon the idea that its advocates 
profess to have discovered forty-three distinct 
and independent compartments in the brain. 
But this is not a fair statement of their teach- 
ing. In no instance has it ever been asserted 
that the seats of the faculties are entirely sepa- 
rated, and independent of one another. On the 
contrary, they must be connected, and their 
boundaries literally interwoven like the colors in 
the rainbow, in order to facilitate their necessary 
co-operation. And yet it is quite possible that 
there may exist very distinct lines of demarca- 
tion which our present means of observation are 
too imperfect to detect. Modern anatomists 
show that there is really no difference in struc- 
ture between a motor and a sensory nerve, ex- 
cept in the manner in which it terminates. A 
motor filament begins in a cell and ends in a 
kind of loop, while the sensory filament begins 



14 THE BRAIN AND THE BIBLE. 

in one cell and ends in another. In view of 
such peculiarities it is not strange that the dis- 
secting knife should fail to reveal many complex 
nervous functions. But while we do not profess 
to separate the individual fibers or cells compos- 
ing each center, it is true nevertheless that the 
boundaries of the centers may be observed ex- 
ternally with sufficient exactness for all practical 
purposes. In cases of extreme development or 
unusual deficiency these limitations and conse- 
quently the shapes of the centers are very 
plainly discernible. As, for example, when Com- 
bativeness is very much larger than the sur- 
rounding convolutions, its form is plainly seen 
to be elongated, and its position perpendicular. 
Very deficient Continuity, when surrounded by 
large Inhabitiveness, Friendship, Self-Esteem, 
etc., causes a depression in the shape of a cres- 
cent, the points inclining downward. Other cen- 
ters present still different configurations, some 
running horizontally and others perpendicularly. 
It is very difficult to understand the exact rela- 



IN TR OB UCTION. 1 5 



tion between brain and mind, or at least to ex- 
press the idea in popular language. The Ger- 
man physiologist, Bock, says, " Geist ist die Ar- 
beit des Gehirns" (Mind is the labor of the 
brain.) Force is only a quality or property of 
matter, and all we can say of the mind, is, that 
it is the activity of the brain. For want of any 
more strictly accurate expression, I shall con- 
tinue to use the word " center," to designate the 
local seat of a particular mental power, although 
it is to be regretted that we have not some 
other term which would be at once entirely phi- 
losophical and unambiguous. Now the diagrams 
or "mapped" heads in the phrenological treatises 
are intended only to show the spaces or territory 
which the centers occupy at the cortex or sur- 
face of the brain. These centers seem to ex- 
pand from the terminus of the spinal cord up- 
ward and outward, very much as the branches 
and fruit upon a tree grow upward and outward 
from the trunk; and, in order to estimate the de- 
velopment of a center, it is necessary to measure 
the distance from the space it occupies at the sur- 



16 THE BRAIN AND THE BIBLE. 

face of the brain or cranium, to the medulla oblon- 
gata, or terminus of the spinal cord. A line drawn 
through the head from the opening of one ear 
to that of the other, will pass through the an- 
terior portion of the medulla oblongata, thus con- 
stituting the meatus auditorius externus, or exter- 
nal opening of the ear, an entirely •convenient 
and accurate base of measurement. 

A well balanced head will, in general terms, 
present a development of about two-thirds for- 
ward of a line drawn upward through the open- 
ing of the ear, and one-third back of this line. 
After becoming familiar with this proportion it 
is easy to detect at a glance any variation from 
it. All the developments visible in the profile 
are measured from the opening of the ear, just 
as one might estimate the length of the spokes 
in a carriage wheel by glancing from the hub to 
the tire. The centers in the lateral parts of the 
brain, or "side head," are estimated by measur- 
ing the head through from side to side. The 
seats of the faculties are all double, like the 



INTRODUCTION. 17 



eyes and ears ; each faculty having a center in 
each hemisphere of the brain. Special promi- 
nences or elevations upon the skull are indeed 
sometimes produced by special developments of 
the brain, but this occurs only when one center 
is much larger than those by which it is sur- 
rounded. In like manner a depression is often 
caused by the great deficiency of one center 
when it is surrounded by others which are 
largely developed. 

However, only a small proportion of the 
forty-three centers will ever be found to present 
such appearances upon any one head, and in all 
cases the development must be estimated by ob- 
serving the distance from the opening of the ear 
to the cortex of the brain, or the surface of the 
skull; or by the width of the head from side 
to side, as the case may be. For example, to 
measure the center named Firmness, project a 
line from the opening of the ear directly upward 
to the top of the head, and the length of this 
line will indicate the development. Or, to 



18 THE BRAIN AND THE BIBLE. 

measure Secretiveness, place the open hands 
upon the sides of the head about an inch above 
the tops of the ears, and observe the width or 
diameter of the head at this point. Of course 
considerable practice is necessary to attain skill 
in estimating cerebral development, as in the 
case of any delicate mechanical work. In this 
connection I may remark that the centers in the 
extreme lower corner of the forehead, just back 
of the outer angle of the eye, are perhaps the 
most difficult of all to estimate correctly. But 
it is only in exceptional cases that real obstacles 
are presented here, and then they are by no 
means formidable. The physico-perceptives, 
which are located beneath the superciliary 
ridge, are not estimated by their anterior pro- 
jection alone, but also by the appearance of the 
eyebrows. Individuality, for example, which ob- 
serves things simply as individual existences, is 
indicated not only by the fullness of the brow 
above the root of the nose, and by the distance 
from the opening of the ear, or from the most 



INTR OB UCTION. 1 9 



prominent j)art of the zygomatic arch, but also 
by the space between the eyebrows; while large 
Order causes the eyebrows to arch over the 
outer angle of the eyes. In general terms, the 
eyebrows may be said to arch over large per- 
ceptives, and to present a horizontal and flat- 
tened appearance when these centers are defi- 
cient. 

In view of these facts regarding the true 
methods of estimating cerebral development, all the 
anatomical objections to Phrenology fall to the 
ground. Such as, for example, those based upon 
the supposed difficulties presented by the frontal 
sinus, the temporal muscle, variation in the 
thickness of the plates of the skull, etc., etc. 
If Phrenologists really asserted that the centers 
always exhibited protuberances upon the surface 
of the cranium, and that these excrescences 
must all be measured like so many warts, it 
would indeed be ridiculous ; but they have never 
taught any such idea, and the popular notions 
regarding "bumpology" have arisen chiefly 



20 THE BRAIN AND THE BIBLE. 

from superficial persons who criticised that 
which they did not understand. The same illit- 
erate class who cry "bumpology," may gener- 
ally be heard confidently discussing the "ab- 
surdities " of Darwinism. Their criticisms on 
Evolution may be chiefly summed up in the 
word "monkey" while the principal idea they 
seem to associate with the name of Dr. Gall is 
"bumps." With reference to this latter expres- 
sion, I wish to remark, in the words of George 
Combe, that "its use is sanctioned by neither 
correctness of language, nor sound philosophy." 
If there is any one department of nature 
more important and dignified than all others, it 
is certainly the human brain ; and whether the 
terms "center," and "organ," are entirely phi- 
losophical or not, there can be no need of the 
vulgarism referred to above. However, as the 
masses of the people have had comparatively 
little opportunity to learn much of Phrenology, 
it is not strange that they should often misin- 
terpret it, or fail to appreciate it; but it is not 



INTRODUCTION'. 21 



so easy to justify the large number of eminent 
scientists who stubbornly oppose it. It is true 
we can in some degree account for their hostility, 
and, in view of certain reasons already indicated, 
they are perhaps not deserving of very severe 
censure ; but still they ought to honor the sub- 
ject of their criticisms with a careful examina- 
tion. This they have obviously never done. 
At least it is a fact worthy of note that none 
of the anti-phrenological literature extant is free 
from gross misrepresentations, together with ob- 
jections of an exceedingly trivial and irrelevant 
character. For example, the modern " Physico- 
Psychologists," "Psychic-Physiologists," or "New 
Phrenologists," as they are variously called, say 
that as the brain is like a folded glove, the 
functions of its midmost and lowest parts can 
not be known to the disciples of Gall, and that 
in consequence of their vivisections upon pigeons, 
rabbits, frogs, etc., the "phrenological map" will 
have to be "revised." Now this is not only 
unscientific, but absurd. The contributions to 



22 THE BRAIN AND THE BIBLE. 

cerebral physiology made by these gentlemen 
suggest the fable of the mountain that labored 
and brought forth a mouse. If, for example, in 
the exposed brain of a dog, we discover the 
nerve center which enables him to wag his tail, 
what relation does such a demonstration bear to 
the exalted mental faculties of man? Suppose 
that by such experiments we do ascertain that 
a certain nervous bulb in the base of the human 
brain relates to the involuntary operations of 
digestion, respiration, circulation, etc., or to the 
movements of our bodies or limbs. Can this 
invalidate the previous discovery of such centers 
as Conscientiousness, Firmness, Benevolence, or 
Causality? By no means. As well talk of de- 
nying the existence of Jupiter because of the 
discovery of his moons. 

There are myriads of diminutive insects 
whose anatomical structure has hitherto com- 
pletely eluded the most skillful microscopists. 
If these are ever dissected and their nature 
thoroughly understood, will it then be necessary 



INTRODUCTION. 23 



for us to give different names to the lion or the 
horse? Every science has dim recesses into 
which no human eye has ever peered. To this 
rule Phrenology has never been presented as an 
exception. But its advocates do profess to de- 
termine, classify, and analyze, all of the impor- 
tant mental faculties, in precisely the same 
sense that naturalists have enumerated all the 
important animals now extant, or in the same 
sense that astronomers have discovered all the 
important planets within the solar system. 

As a proof that there yet remains but little 
to do in the way of discovering new cerebral 
centers of special importance, we submit the 
fact that, already, centers have been localized 
which, either singly or in combination, corre- 
spond to, and satisfactorily account for, all of 
the normal mental phenomena with which we^ 
are acquainted. As the existence and functions 
of these centers have been demonstrated by a 
rigid and extensive induction, no amount of ad- 
ditional discovery can ever refute them. Fur- 



24 THE BRAIN AND THE BIBLE. 

thermore, clinical observation has demonstrated 
that they are located in the gray matter, which 
composes the cortex or external portion of the 
brain, by the circumstance that when any faculty 
is especially excited, diseased, or otherwise af- 
fected, the only perceptible anatomical phenomena 
are in the cortical substance, and not in the 
striated or interior structure; much in the same 
sense that the growth or decay of an apple is 
not accompanied by any perceptible structural 
change in the bodv or limbs of the tree. And 
as the richest fruit usually grows upon the 
longest branches, or at the greatest distance 
from the trunk, so the strength of the cerebral 
centers, other things being equal, is indicated 
more by their distance from the medulla oblon- 
gata, than by their lateral expansion at the sur- 
face of the brain. Hence we might as reasona- 
bly split open the limbs or trunk of a tree to 
look for apples, as to seek new centers of im- 
portant faculties in the midmost and lowest 
parts of the brain. Why or how this is true, 



INTRODUCTION. 25 



need not here be discussed. We have irrefuta- 
ble proof that it is true, and that is sufficient 
for our present purpose. Again, if the brain 
may be unfolded like the fingers of a clenched 
hand, or glove, which, be it remembered, Drs. 
Gall and Spurzheim were the first to demon- 
strate, it is equally true that the healthy func- 
tions of the brain are performed only when it is 
folded, and that its most important centers may 
be observed without unfolding it. That this 
may be done is sufficiently proved by the fact 
that it has been done. 

To show clearlv and conclusivelv that the 
physiologists are, as a rule, very imperfectly ac- 
quainted with Phrenology, it is necessary only 
to observe the language they employ in their 
references to it. A single example will suffice. 
In Dr. Dunglison's Medical Dictionary, the edi- 
tion of 1874, a well known work, and one re- 
garded by the medical profession as second to 
none in authority, under the word Craniology, 
is the following extraordinarv statement: 



26 THE BRAIN AND THE BIBLE. 

"According to Dr. Gall, each projection, 
which he calls an organ, is the seat of a par- 
ticular intellectual or moral faculty, and all per- 
sons endowed with the same faculty, have, at 
the same part of the brain, a prominence, which 
is indicated, externally, by a bump or projection 
in the bony case. The System of Dr. Gall is 
made to comprise twenty-seven prominences, 
which answer to twenty-seven primary faculties." 

Here we have the hackneyed and ground- 
less accusation, that, " according to Dr. Gall" for 
each mental faculty, there is in all cases exhib- 
ited a cranial " bump"; or, in other words, that 
each individual head displays as many bony ex- 
crescences as its owner possesses mental facul- 
ties. Truly nothing could be a greater distortion 
of Dr. Gall's teaching, and yet this is but a 
mild specimen of the misrepresentations made 
by many of the eminent medical, theological, 
and philosophical writers. I will not attempt 
any further explanation of the causes of this in- 
justice. It is enough for the present to show 



INTRODUCTION. 27 



that in this matter our opponents display either 
ignorance or dishonesty. 

Phrenology may be defined, first, as a sys- 
tem of mental philosophy founded upon the phys- 
iology of the brain ; and second, as the art or 
science of reading character by estimating cere- 
bral power. It is well not to lose sight of this 
dual definition. Phrenology establishes the only 
correct mental philosophy by determining the true 
number and nature of the primary faculties which 
constitute the human mind, and in this sense it 
is a positive system. But as applied to reading 
character, it must be regarded simply as an es- 
timative science precisely analogous to the prac- 
tice of medicine. Until the discovery of the 
functions of the brain, it was impossible to as- 
certain the number of the inherent faculties, or 
to distinguish between the manifestations of dis- 
tinct faculties and the manifestations produced 
by two or more faculties acting in concert. As, 
for example, if a man was observed to evince a 
tendency to finish every undertaking without in- 



28 THE BRAIN AND THE BIBLE. 

termission, it was impossible to determine 
whether this disposition arose from a faculty of 
executiveness, a faculty of firmness, or two such 
faculties in combination ; or whether it was pro- 
duced by a single faculty of continuity ; and so 
with many other mental phenomena. 

It may be well to explain here that the 
metaphysical analyses and the nomenclature laid 
down in many of the phrenological textbooks 
are not in every particular entirely correct, 
owing to certain difficulties which were necessa- 
rily encountered in the early history of the 
science, but which are now easily overcome by 
means of the great number of data possessed at 
the present time. Nearly all of the cerebral 
centers were first discovered by observing them 
in cases of extreme development, or by observ- 
ing excessive or perverted mental manifestations ; 
hence it was but natural to adopt a nomencla- 
ture, which, in some cases, was expressive of 
perverted rather than normal mental action. 
Thus Dr. Gall was led to give to the center 



INTRODUCTION. 29 



now called Destructiveness, or Executiveness, 
the names "Wiirgsinn" and " Penchant aumeurtre" 
which mean the propensity to kill, because he found 
it large in the heads of all murderers, and car- 
nivorous animals. In like manner, the so-called 
"spiritual" faculties, Hope, Veneration, and 
Wonder, have been supposed to relate to a 
supernatural world, because they have been ob- 
served to be extremely active in persons strongly 
inclined to superstition. This inference, how- 
ever, is entirely unwarranted, although it has 
been regarded with much more favor by modern 
Phrenologists than by Gall, Spurzheim, or 
Combe. On this point I agree substantially with 
Combe. The first faculty in this so-called 
"spiritual group," Hope, which, by many Christ- 
ians, is said to inspire an intuitive belief in im- 
mortality, if regarded normally, and with refer- 
ence to its dependence upon the intellect for its 
objects, has clearly no necessary connection with 
a faith in any other world than the present. 
The normal function of Veneration is to produce 



30 THE BRAIN AND THE BIBLE. 

the sentiment of respect for superiors, and for 
every thing pronounced by the intellect to be great 
and good ; also to offset the arrogance and super- 
ciliousness which would otherwise naturally 
spring from Self-Esteem. Thirdly, the much 
discussed faculty of Wonder, misnamed " Spirit- 
uality," can not be shown to have any exclusive 
relation to a belief in the existence of disembod- 
ied souls, or spirit communication, since it may 
be gratified by the contemplation of any thing 
novel or wonderful. Its normal function is sim- 
ply to confer a love for the new and the un- 
known in general, and to inspire a confidence 
and interest in any mysterious or apparently 
impossible thing before the evidence of its truth 
has been or can be presented. It thus has a 
legitimate and useful sphere of activity within 
the domain of the natural. And as its function 
is clearly one of general wonder, the name of 
the faculty should also be a general term which 
could not be construed to refer exclusively to a 
special phase of manifestation. In discussing 



INTRODUCTION. 31 



this subject, George Combe very correctly says, 
that " philosophy can not acknowledge any object 
or event that occurs in the present day as mi- 
raculous or supernatural : a special faculty, there- 
fore, for belief in such objects, appears inadmis- 
sible." Again: ''Philosophy does not recognize 
the 'supernatural,' while it admits wonder at 
new and extraordinary circumstances as a legiti- 
mate state of mind." 

Such imperfections in the literature of 
Phrenology, and apparent contradictions in the 
teachings of its defenders, have led many to 
question its right to be called a true science ; 
but this objection is entirely superficial. There 
are no contradictions in the science itself, and 
the inaccuracies of its teachers arise solely from 
their prejudices or imperfect knowledge. The 
same is true of every other department of 
learning. 

Here it may be asked, what is the proper 
method by which to determine the legitimate 
function of a cerebral center? We answer, that 



32 THE BRAIN AND THE BIBLE. 

the test must be made solely by our reason. If 
a certain sphere of activity is evidently conduc- 
ive to the highest degree of harmony in the ac- 
tion of the whole faculties, the intellect and moral 
sentiments holding the supremacy, we may cer- 
tainly regard it as legitimate. To illustrate: It 
is entirely reasonable to be prudent, watchful, 
and careful, and to try to avoid danger. We 
know that there are many dangers which we 
must escape in order to be happy, and so we 
perceive that the faculty of Cautiousness has a 
sphere of activity which is conducive to the 
highest degree of harmony in the affairs of life. 
But suppose this faculty should be too strongly 
developed in an individual, and should give rise 
to a settled hypochondria, under circumstances 
entirely favorable to safety, health, and happi- 
ness. In such a case it would be quite proper 
for the intellect to pronounce such a manifesta- 
tion an abuse of the faculty. In the same man- 
ner the intellect readily perceives that gluttony, 
murder, theft, and lying, are abuses of Aliment- 



IXTRODVCTION. 33 



iveness, Destructiveness, Acquisitiveness, and 
Secretiveness, because to a full-orbed and en- 
lightened mind, these actions give great offense 
to the sentiments of Conscientiousness and Be- 
nevolence. Then as regards the names of the 
faculties, it is very evident that only those 
terms should be selected which will express or 
include all the general and legitimate functions 
of a faculty, without specifying any perverted 
manifestation or particular phase of normal ac- 
tion. Thus the name Wonder, adopted by Mr. 
Combe, is consistent with all of the legitimate 
functions of the faculty to which it refers, while 
the modern term "Spirituality" is objectionable 
because it implies a special phase of manifesta- 
tion, which, even if it were philosophically ad- 
missible, does not include or imply the legiti- 
mate functions of the faculty within the physi- 
cal world. The terms Hope, and Veneration, 
are, however, not open to this objection. 

Phrenology thus reveals the inherent consti- 
tution of the mind, furnishing the correct ideal 



34 THE BRAIN AND THE BIBLE. 

or model of human nature, to which all can 
look as an example for imitation. It bears the 
same relation to every thing mental, that physi- 
ology and anatomy do to the physical man. 
Its importance and dignity in this respect can 
scarcely be overestimated, although it has been 
objected that the true principles of government, 
education, ethics, etc., etc., can be ascertained 
without appealing to mental science, just as 
mathematics, chemistry, geology, etc., have been 
developed without any reference to the mental 
faculties. The fallac}^ of such an objection is 
immediately apparent when we consider that 
botany, astronomy, chemistry, mathematics, geol- 
ogy, etc., relate to objects the existence of which 
is entirely external to, and independent of the 
mind ; whereas the objects of civil and criminal 
legislation, intellectual culture, moral philosophy, 
etc., etc., are the qualities and actions of the mind 
itself. These objects have, of course, no exist- 
ence independently of the mind, and they can 
no more be systematically or correctly under- 



INTRODUCTION. 35 



stood without a knowledge of the mental consti- 
tution, than surgery can be cultivated as a 
science in ignorance of the structure of the 
body. 

Let us now briefly notice the subject of 
" Practical Phrenology," or "Anthroposcopy ;" 
the art or science of character reading. In this 
sense, or from this point of view, Phrenology 
may be comprehended in the general term Phy- 
siognomy, although the meaning of the latter 
word is popularly limited to the facial organiza- 
tion, while the former is restricted to the cranial 
indications. In reading character, it is necessary 
to take into account not only the relative cere- 
bral developments, but also the various modify- 
ing influences, such as health, education, the ab- 
solute size and texture of the brain, the tem- 
perament, and the "quality;" the indications of 
which include all facial or other physiognomical 
signs, and are all very perceptible to the prac- 
ticed Phrenologist. Health states are compara- 
tively easy to determine. Education, or recent 



36 THE BRAIN AND THE BIBLE. 

activity of any part of the brain, especially if 
excessive, or steadily continued for a few years, 
or even months, produces a peculiar elevation 
and sharpness of the contiguous section of the 
cranium, a condition very easily distinguished 
from irregularities dependent upon other causes. 
Size of the brain, as a whole, or of its individ- 
ual parts, is a measure of power only when the 
other conditions are equal. In a given tempera- 
ment, and of a given texture, the larger an en- 
tire brain, or an individual part, the greater the 
power. All really great men have large brains, 
without a single exception. By great men, I 
mean those whose operations are on a large 
scale, and who deal with great subjects. Such 
as Shakspeare, Napoleon, Humboldt, etc. Mod- 
erate sized heads may be penetrating, subtile, 
and brilliant, like the diamond, but never pro- 
found ; while large heads are often dull because 
of coarse texture or an unfavorable temperament. 
An individual may also manifest great intel- 
lectual power with a forehead which appears low 






INTR OD UCTION. 37 



or narrow, because of a deficiency of Agreeable- 
ness, Mirthfulness, Ideality, etc., which assist 
very much in giving breadth and height to the 
frontal lobes. Generally speaking, the most im- 
portant modifying condition is Temperament. 
This word, etymologically considered, means 
simply mixture. In popular parlance, it is often 
used to indicate a peculiar combination of men- 
tal qualities ; but as a phrenological technicality, 
it refers exclusively to the relative proportion 
of the physical elements presented in an indi- 
vidual, and may be taken to represent either 
this combination or the general state of the con- 
stitution resulting therefrom. Character is af- 
fected by temperament in -several ways. First, 
the nutrition, activity, and strength of the brain, 
are dependent upon the functions of digestion, 
respiration, circulation, etc.; and, second, as the 
cerebral centers of the purely psychical or con- 
scious activities are literally interwoven with 
centers relating to purely physical or involuntary 
functions, the great activity of any special bodily 



38 THE BRAIN AND THE BIBLE. 

organ thus tends to excite those mental faculties 
which are in sympathy with its functions. Thus 
the condition of the digestive apparatus affects 
Alimentiveness, Amativeness, etc. Muscular ex- 
ercise sharpens Combativeness, the physico- 
perceptive intellectual faculties, etc., etc. 

The texture of the brain, in general terms, 
corresponds to the texture of the other parts of 
the organization, and may be conveniently de- 
termined by observing the character of the hair, 
skin, etc., at the same time taking into account 
the influence of the temperament. The especial 
development as well as the great activity of the 
cineritious or convoluted cerebral matter is indi- 
cated also by the high temperature and evident 
thinness of the cranial bones, peculiar adhesion 
of the skin to the forehead, etc., etc. Upon the 
texture of the gray matter depends the delicacy 
of the mental operations, while the absolute 
quantity, caeteris paribus, determines the power. 

It is to be regretted that none of the 
phrenological authors give an accurate definition 



INTRODUCTION. SO 



of " Quality." The majority of them ignore it 
entirely, while others confound it with the en- 
cephalic temperament, or with the manifestations 
of Ideality, and nearly all refer to it as a syno- 
nym for cerebral texture and consequent sub- 
til ty or power of intellect. But according to my 
observations, it is necessary to distinguish a con- 
dition which is not referable to any particular 
cerebral or temperamental combination whatso- 
ever, and which is distinct from brilliancy or 
depth of intellect. This I call Quality. In 
popular parlance the word " blood" is often used 
to represent the same idea; as, for example, a 
family is said to be of good "blood," or good 
"stock." Some persons impress us by their in- 
stinctive refinement and natural aristocrac} r , 
while others, though perhaps endowed with 
greater acuteness or profundity of intellect, still 
betray a plebeian cheapness in every thing they 
do. High Quality is always accompanied by fine 
texture, but fine texture is by no means always 
accompanied by high Quality. The "Nervous 



40 THE BRAIN- AND THE BIBLE. 

Temperament" of the pathological classification 
often illustrates very delicate texture without 
high Quality, while the latter is indicated by 
classical features, symmetrical form, etc., but es- 
pecially by a peculiar stamp or expression of 
the face, and by a light in the eye which may 
be seen and felt, though not easily described. 

These remarks upon mental science are of 
course intended only to point out the fact that 
the Gallian system is established, and that con- 
sequently all logical deductions from it may be 
accepted as irrefutable. And as it would be im- 
possible within the limited space of this Intro- 
duction to answer all the numerous objections 
made by our opponents, I would ask the reader 
especially to remember that the evidence upon 
which Phrenology rests, is of the most logical and 
conclusive kind known to human reason. It chal- 
lenges criticism by the most scientific methods 
of investigation ever devised. We do not say, 
look at the evidence and believe, but, look and 
know. However, if the reader should have any 



INTRODUCTION. 41 



cause to doubt the accuracy of my statements, I 
respectfully invite him to investigate the subject 
for himself, which, I am sure, will more than 
repay him for all the necessary outlay of time 
and effort. I would advise a careful perusal of 
almost any of the standard phrenological text- 
books, but particularly the works of George 
Combe, keeping in mind the hints I have given 
in the preceding pages with reference to the 
proper methods of measuring the cerebral de- 
velopments, as well as regards the scientific an- 
alysis of the faculties of Hope, Veneration, and 
Wonder. But if this should prove insufficient 
to convince the skeptical student, let him ob- 
serve the heads of his friends and others as he 
has opportunity, and if he conducts his investi- 
gations according to the rules to which I have 
referred, he will certainly discover that the 
"Doctrine of Gall" is supported by an array 
of facts which nothing can set aside. And who 
can contentedly remain unacquainted with a sub- 
ject which is confessedly second to none in dig- 



42 THE BRAIN AND THE BIBLE. 

nity and importance? It can not be denied 
that with the recognition of Phrenology, deduc- 
tions fatal to all the popular systems of mental 
and moral philosophy are inevitable. That this 
is not an idea held \>j Infidels alone, the reader 
may easily assure himself by referring to the 
writings of almost any of the orthodox meta- 
physicians from Sir William Hamilton to Dr. 
McCosh. As a characteristic acknowledgment 
regarding the Gallian philosophy, take the fol- 
lowing from an anti-phrenological work by the 
late Rev. Dr. Rice, of Cincinnati: "If its funda- 
mental principles are true, every other system 
of mental and moral science must be not modi- 
fied and improved, but absolutely abandoned as 
utterly false. Locke, and Reid, and Stewart, 
and Brown, and all others must be forever laid 
upon the shelf." 

To this and similar admissions by theologi- 
cal opponents, however, it may be objected that 
many of the clergy are followers of Gall. Yery 
true ; but it may be regarded as equally certain 



INTRODUCTION. 43 



that no theologian can be a scientific Phrenolo- 
gist unless he is heterodox in his theology, and 
that no Phrenologist can be orthodox in theology 
unless he is very unscientific as a Phrenologist. 

But while I earnestly defend the true 
Phrenology, I by no means indorse the many 
itinerant self-styled Professors, who, in all parts 
of the country, are preying upon the curiosity 
and credulity of the public, and who, although 
with good intentions perhaps, succeed only in 
bringing this noble science into ill-repute. Many 
of these persons have never received any in- 
struction from a master of the subject, and are 
even unacquainted with the most important 
phrenological literature. However, this is largely 
the fault of the public. There would be a greater 
number of good Phrenologists if the people would 
patronize them. The quality as well as the 
quantity of the demand is likely to regulate the 
character of the supply in every thing. 

Scarcely any thing is more susceptible of 
quackery than "Practical Phrenology," and no 



44 THE BRAIN AND THE BIBLE. 

mere beginner should ever attempt to read char- 
acter professionally, any more than a tyro in 
surgery should attempt to extract a cancer. 

But still it is very wrong to judge a 
science merely by its representatives. Char- 
acter and reputation are often very widely 
different. Phrenology is not the property of 
Phrenologists. It belongs to the whole human 
race, and appeals to every individual. If the 
people want better Professors of mental science, 
let them make the demand, and it will be met. 
Or if the people want better phrenological 
treatises, let them free their minds from the 
slavish dogmas of supernaturalism, and the 
phrenological textbooks will be correspondingly 
improved also. It is the superstition in the world 
to-day which keeps scientific Phrenology in obscurity. 
When the clouds break away the sun will ap- 
pear. 

Hoping that the reader may be prepared to 
accept the ideas contained in the subsequent 
chapters at their just value, whatever it may 



INTRODUCTION. 45 



be, I shall proceed with a few arguments to 
show that the Brain is the only true Bible ; 
that Nature embraces all there is of which we 
have any logical evidence, and that neglect of 
Nature paves the broad road to the only Hell, 
while obedience to natural law makes a flowery 
path to the only Heaven. 



46 TIIE BRAIN AND THE BIBLE. 



CHAPTER I. 

THE PILOT OF THE PASSIONS. 

FN surveying the mental constitution we are 
■*■ struck by the fact that the different facul- 
ties are not all of the same rank or importance, 
and that some of them are adapted to be leaders 
and directors of the others. 

Abundant experience shows that mankind 
are happiest when acting under the supreme 
control of the moral sentiments and enlightened 
intellect. That is, allowing to each of the lower 
propensities a sphere of activity which shall be 
pronounced by the intellect to be legitimate, and 
which can give no offense to the moral senti- 
ments. The propensities are entirely blind, sim- 
ply desiring gratification, without the least power 
to determine their proper objects. Thus, for ex- 
ample, Alimentiveness simply desires food; but 
the assistance of the intellect is necessary to de- 



THE PILOT OF THE PASSIONS. 47 

cide as to what is wholesome. Acquisitiveness, 
if indulged without any reference to the decis- 
ions of the intellect, would be as much gratified 
by the accumulation of stolen property, as by 
the proceeds of a legitimate business. Benevo- 
lence is quite as blind as Alimentiveness. It 
simply prompts to deeds of kindness, and, unless 
controlled by intellect and Conscientiousness, 
would be delighted to steal from the rich in 
order to help the poor. In fact this manifesta- 
tion is by no means infrequent. Conscientious- 
ness, although itself such a powerful element for 
good, and so necessary for the control of the 
other faculties, is also entirely dependent upon 
the intellect for guidance. Indeed nothing can 
be more obvious than that in every age and 
clime, people have been educated to do wrong in 
the firm belief that they were fulfilling their 
hio'hest dutv. 

Now, the faculty of Veneration, like the ap- 
petite for food, can not of itself suggest an ob- 
ject which shall deserve its homage. If it can 



48 THE BRAIN AND THE BIBLE. 

be superior to reason, why have the religious 
nations of the world always worshiped deities 
which corresponded exactly in character to the 
peculiar intellectual status of their votaries? 
That Veneration must be directed through the 
intellect to its objects, is too self-evident to re- 
quire any extended illustration. 

The faculty of Wonder, miscalled " Spirit- 
uality," as I have stated in the Introduction, has 
been regarded by many as properly the faculty 
of faith in the supernatural, and particularly in 
the Christian Bible. But if it has the power to 
select its objects, why is it stimulated by cogni- 
tions and beliefs which vary as interminably as 
the intellectual training and biases of its posses- 
sors? As, for instance, among Mohammedans 
we find it excited and gratified by the Koran, 
although unaffected by the traditions of Bud- 
dhism. Among the Jews we find it marveling at 
the fables of the Pentateuch, although indiffer- 
ent to the alleged miracles of Christ; while 
among Roman Catholics and Protestant Christ- 



THE PILOT OF THE PASSIONS. 49 

ians its phases of manifestation present still 
different peculiarities, which, in some respects, 
are diametrically opposed to each other and to 
those of all other creeds. The cold intellectual 
act of belief, combined with the influence of this 
faculty, constitutes " faith;" but alone, Wonder 
produces simply a pleasurable emotion when any 
remarkable circumstance is communicated to the 
mind. As its gratification depends solely upon 
the novel or extravagant character of certain ob- 
jects contemplated by the intellect, it may be 
said to stimulate or produce belief in those ob- 
jects, from the fact that it repels every act of the 
intellect which would divest them of their marvelous 
qualities. Thus, when an individual has been 
taught to believe the reputed Christian miracles, 
a large development of Wonder, by filling the 
mind with agreeable sensations awakened in con- 
sequence of that belief, in its turn, biases the 
judgment in favor of the reality and legitimacy 
of the miracles. It is thus clearly impossible 
that this sentiment can possess any superiority 



50 THE BRAIN AND THE BIBLE. 

over the intellect as a guide to truth, when from 
its very nature it must antagonize all attempts 
to destroy the phantoms upon which it feeds. 
Independently of intellectual cognition, it is no 
more able to solve the problems of the Whence 
and Whither, or to teach us the duties of life, 
than the avarice of a miser, or the egotism of a 
tyrant. 

As regards the remaining one of the so- 
called " spiritual faculties," Hope, I have already 
remarked that it is thought by many to be the 
basis of the almost universal belief in the im- 
mortality of the soul, and therefore an indirect 
proof that there is a future life. There are, 
however, no facts to support the assumption that 
Hope, unaided by external evidence presented to 
the intellect, would instinctively suggest a belief 
in a spirit world. The true office of this faculty, 
regarded by itself, is simply to produce a feeling 
of confidence in the future attainment of what- 
ever the other faculties may desire, without any 
reference to possibility, probability, or reason a- 



THE PILOT OF THE PASSIONS. 51 

bleness. Hence, to assert that these three facul- 
ties possess within themselves an intelligence 
which can determine the reality of certain ob- 
jects, the existence of which is declared by the 
intellect to be impossible or incredible, because 
in direct conflict with the first principles of 
scientific and philosophical investigation, is as 
irrational as to say that the paintings of Rem- 
brandt or Titian can delight the blind, or that 
the symphonies of Beethoven can thrill the 
deaf. 

That these faculties have for many ages 
been exercised to a great extent in connection 
with a belief in the supernatural, may be easily 
explained. The function of Wonder, as before 
stated, is to inspire in the mind a sympathy 
with any thing new, remarkable, or apparently 
inexplicable, under circumstances where demon- 
stration is for the time being impracticable or 
difficult. This love for the unusual, the extrava- 
gant, and the romantic, relieves the mind of that 
staid, matter-of-fact tendency, which may often 



52 THE BRAIN AND THE BIBLE. 

be observed among individuals of all ranks, and 
manifestly serves a very useful purpose in off- 
setting what would otherwise be a too skeptical 
and disagreeably incredulous action of the intel- 
lect. Without a certain degree of this element, 
the mind is almost as prone to sneer at new 
and extraordinary scientific truths, as to reject 
the supernatural. The faculty of Yeneration 
naturally reveres the ancient, the powerful, and 
the good, thus producing the disposition to rec- 
ognize and submit willingly to authority. Its 
influence, when predominant, is well illustrated 
in the sycophantic character of the negro; 
while the American Indians, who have a great 
deal of Combativeness, Destructiveness, and 
Self-Esteem, bow to no one but the " Great 
Spirit." Hope, in its normal action, looks to 
the future, and directs the mind to a contem- 
plation of possible enjoyments beyond the 
present. 

By comparing these facts of normal mental 
function with the history of religious creeds, it 



THE PILOT OF THE PASSIONS. 53 

is very evident that the whole structure of su- 
pernaturalism, with all its beauties and terrors, 
has been developed from an abuse of the mental 
faculties rather than by an obedience to the true 
Bible of Nature. 

In the dawn of intellectual evolution, noth- 
ing was known respecting the constitution of the 
mind, and little more concerning the facts of the 
external world. Consequently, the mental facul- 
ties operated merely as blind instincts, simply 
desiring gratification, without the slightest re- 
gard to any laws of mental action. Inexplicable 
phenomena were observed on every hand. All 
ojDerations of nature not visibly connected with 
their causes, appeared to depend upon some ca- 
pricious being superior to nature. Thus was 
first suggested the idea of a God. A desire to 
secure the approval of the gods, and to avoid 
giving them offense, was the foundation of all 
religious worship ; and this explains why systems 
of theology are almost as old and as universal 
as ignorance itself. As the gods were conceived 



54 THE BRAIN AND THE BIBLE. 

to be the highest powers in the universe, of 
course they became the chief objects for the ex- 
ercise of the faculty of Veneration. All phe- 
nomena, or accounts of phenomena, supposed to 
proceed from the gods, naturally afforded the 
most accessible and abundant material for the 
gratification of the faculty of Wonder. The 
connection of the faculty of Hope with the idea 
of immortality, originated in the same manner. 
A purely intellectual process determined the be- 
lief in the permanency of the supposed psychi- 
cal entity, and the faculty of Hope seized upon 
this conception as the highest object for its 
gratification, and finally came to be regarded as 
the source of the idea. 

We are thus led to the conclusion that the 
intellect is the only possible judge of what con- 
stitutes legitimate food for the various mental 
powers, — in short, that reason bears the same 
relation to the propensities and sentiments that 
the engineer of a locomotive does to the steam 
in the boiler. And if this is true, we must ad- 



THE PILOT OF THE PASSIONS. 55 

mit that no object is worthy of our respect or our 
belief, if it is declared by our enlightened intellect 
to be false. 

It is often objected that reason is not infal- 
lible. Suppose it is not. Does that in any de- 
gree change the fact that it is the only proper 
guide for the whole faculties? Would any one 
think of denying that it is the duty of the en- 
gineer to regulate the locomotive, simply because 
his judgment is not always correct? Certainly 
not. We always consciously or unconsciously 
evolve our beliefs from evidence presented to 
the intellect, be they what they may, simply be- 
cause it is only the intellect which does believe. 
And yet, while belief is restricted to the under- 
standing, of course the instinctive activity of the 
other faculties often biases its judgments. Thus 
the blind sentiments of Wonder, Veneration, 
and Hope, may incite the intellect to seek out 
objects for their gratification, although within 
themselves they are utterly unable to form any 
ideas, and are helplessly dependent upon the in- 



56 THE BRAIN AND THE BIBLE. 

tellect for all the objects they secure. But, to 
obtain the highest results, all tests of truth 
should be made by intellects which are trained 
to logical methods, and which are duly enlightened 
regarding the legitimate spheres of all the propensi- 
ties and sentiments. 

Some clergymen of to-day who imagine that 
Phrenology may be reconciled with Orthodoxy, 
lay great stress ivpon the idea that fragmentary 
heads always evolve fragmentary philosophies, 
and hence that men of ever so great intellect 
who are deficient in Veneration, Wonder, and 
Hope, are incapable of ascertaining the higher 
needs of the soul, or of properly criticising the 
Bible. But it might quite as reasonably be ob- 
jected that a skillful pilot is no longer capable 
of determining the safest course for a ship when 
in a storm, simply because at such a time all 
her sails are furled. However, while we hold 
that these angular philosophers are fully able to 
point out the perilous rocks and strands in the 
ocean of life, we freely admit that before they 



THE PILOT OF THE PASSIONS. 57 

can be thoroughly qualified to suggest the nec- 
essary motors for the ship of humanity, they 
must become acquainted with the legitimate 
functions and needs of the whole mental facul- 
ties. But it is a very great error to suppose 
that all Infidels are only angular iconoclasts. It 
is simply a question as to the true religion; 
that is, as regards the proper ideals to which 
mankind should be bound ; and as to whether 
w r e should be guided to our ideals by reason, or 
by emotion. 

Wow we are taught by supernaturalists who 
profess to be authority in matters pertaining to 
the highest culture, that " all things are possible 
with God," and that it is our duty to believe in 
the divinity of the Bible whether we can recon- 
cile its doctrines with reason or not. But if the 
objects of our belief are not to be subjected to 
logical criticism, why should Christians not ac- 
cept Mohammedanism as the true religion? 
Indeed, why is not the Koran the true Bible? 
The Christian answers, "because it teaches ab- 



58 THE BRAIN AND THE BIBLE. 

surdities, impossibilities, etc. ; such as that the 
earth is a level plane ; that the sky is supported 
by mountains, etc." Wow I ask, if "spiritual 
discernment" is superior to reason, what right 
have we to reject the Koran on the ground that 
it is unreasonable ? May it not have been a 
part of God's "infinite and unfathomable plan," 
to introduce those inconsistencies into the Koran 
just to "try our faith"? How shall we decide, 
if all things (absurdities included,) are possible 
with God ? But if we test the Koran by the 
standard of reason, why should we not subject 
every other Bible to the same test ? The Chris- 
tian of course scorns Mohammedanism, Buddhism, 
etc., etc., as systems destitute of any logical 
support, and hence unworthy of acceptance; but 
is not this an appeal to reason ? Christians of- 
ten admit that the truth of their religion can not 
be demonstrated by logic, and yet the} r say they 
choose it in preference to Buddhism, or other 
heathen superstitions, because it is better than 
the latter. But how do they determine that it 



THE PILOT OF THE PASSIONS. 59 

is "better" if not by an operation of the intel- 
lect ? Are they not, therefore, very inconsistent 
in denying to the Infidel the right to test their 
Bible by the standard of enlightened intellect, 
when they do so themselves according to their 
ability ? Clergymen may often be heard preach- 
ing this idea : " If the difficulties in the Bible 
will not yield to our reason, then our reason must 
be defective" But how can a man be justified in 
the conclusion that, in such a case, his reason is at 
fault, until he has first demonstrated that the 
Bible is true? And how is it possible ever to 
demonstrate the divinity of the Bible, so long as 
it can be shown to contain doctrines which are 
utterly opposed to reason ? Why not say, " if 
the Koran contains apparently illogical state- 
ments, then my ideas of logic must be defect- 
ive"? 

To deny that a creed must be subjected to 
reason, is equivalent to saying that there is no 
means by which to distinguish truth from error, 



60 THE BRAIN AND THE BIBLE. 

since it is only through reason that we know 
any thing. And to admit that a book contains 
statements which are irreconcilable with reason, 
must be equal to an admission that the book is 
not divine. 

To show that Christians themselves, as long 
as was possible, held that in order to be authori- 
tative, the Bible must be true in all its details, 
it is necessary only to point to their tireless ef- 
forts to explain the inconsistencies in which it 
abounds. And that no theologians would ever 
have modified the doctrine of plenary inspiration 
if the demonstrations of science had not com- 
pelled them to do so, is too self-evident to re- 
quire any illustration. 

And now I would ask, is not the Christian 
Bible unreasonable, and unworthy of acceptance 
as anything more than a human literature ? To 
prove that it is not an infallible book, and that 
its very foundation is at utter variance with 
truth, we have only to compare its declarations 



THE PILOT OF THE PASSIONS. 61 

with the certain revelations of nature. Sub- 
jected to the crucible of logic, nothing can be 
clearer than that the Bible has been produced 
within the realm of the natural ; that it is sim- 
ply human; that it abounds in error, and that 
it only illustrates the mental development of the 
times in which it was written. 

It is often asserted that we are daily obliged 
to admit many things in nature as true which 
are beyond and above our comprehension ; as, for 
example, the growth of vegetation; the phe- 
nomena of heat, light, electricity, and human 
life itself. And as these and a thousand similar 
inexplicable truths are believed without question, 
w r e are told that we should not reject the mys- 
teries of the Bible. To this, we reply that the 
mysteries of nature, although not explainable by 
human intelligence, are still in harmony with rea- 
son and experience, while the dogmas of the 
Bible are flatly contradicted by reason. As there 
is no analogy between the two cases, this objec- 
tion, together w r ith all others of its kind, falls to 



62 THE BRAIN AND THE BIBLE. 

the ground. Again, it is urged by many, that 
because the theory of Evolution is not yet posi- 
tively demonstrated, and because we can not 
trace the first appearance of life upon the earth 
— in a word, because Science has been unable to 
disintegrate the Absolute, she should humbly 
bow at the shrine of Christian Faith, and ac- 
knowledge herself a learner at the feet of Super- 
stition. But how absurd is this insinuation that 
because Science has failed to do every thing, she 
has therefore done nothing I Is it necessary that 
a gallon should be a hogshead in order to be 
more than a gill ? Why, then, should the evi- 
dences supporting the theory of Evolution need 
to be presented in an endless chain, without a 
missing link, simply in order to outweigh the 
" airy nothings " of Bible creeds ? As to the 
mysteries of the objective world, Infidels have 
always been the first to admit that all our 
knowledge is simply relative, and that the 
nature of things " an und fur sich" must forever 
remain inscrutable to our finite minds. All we 



THE PILOT OF THE PASSIONS. 63 

affirm, and all we insist upon, is, that fact is 
weightier than fancy ; that knowledge is superior 
to faith and fear ; that only reason can safely 
guide us in our investigations, and that the 
achievements of Science, although imperfect, are 
infinitely more than sufficient to render incredi- 
ble the dogmas of the Church. 

But theologians are not content with sim- 
ply ridiculing our "Gospel of Dirt," as it has 
been called. And they not only assume that our 
inability to bridge the chasms between the 
known and the unknowable should be taken as 
proof that theology is true, but that before we 
reject the theological affirmative, it is our duty 
to prove our negative. That is to say, before 
we reject the Bible, it logically devolves upon us 
to demonstrate absolutely that there is not a super- 
natural order. Could any thing be farther from 
all principles of correct reasoning? Suppose an 
innocent man is arrested on a charge of theft. 
Must he be punished simply because lie is un- 
able to prove an alibis No; the court must hold 



64 THE BRAIN AND THE BIBLE. 

him innocent until lie is proven guilty, and un- 
less the evidence of his guilt is presented, he is 
entitled to an honorable dismissal. The same is 
true of Infidelity. For eighteen centuries Free- 
thinkers have been arraigned before the bar of 
Christian Ecclesiasticism, on the charge of crimi- 
nal unbelief, and it devolves upon the Church to 
produce the evidence of our guilt. This she never 
has done, and never can do. Therefore, while we 
do not say absolutely that our honest heresy is no 
crime against some infinite and unknowable Be- 
ing, in the absence of any logical evidence of such 
a preposterous thing, we singly do not, can not, 
and should not believe it. 

Objections are also made against criticism 
of the Bible, on the ground that its chronology, 
geology, astronomy, etc., etc., are not inspired, 
and were not intended to be scientifically cor- 
rect. But who has the authority to say that 
one part is true and another false? If the 
story of Eclen is a "poem," a "picture/' or an 



THE PILOT OF THE PASSIONS. 65 

"allegory," as we are often told, why may not 
the command to believe in Christ be also an 
"allegory?" Why may not the doctrine of 
Eternal Retribution be a " picture?" Or why 
may not the whole Plan of Salvation be a 
" poem? " If Genesis is not a "geological book," 
and was not intended to give a "scientific" ac- 
count of the creation of the earth, how shall we 
know that it was intended to give a "scientific" 
or literal account of the fall of man ? The 
Christian may answer that the Bible is simply 
a moral guide, and that it is infallible only in 
its exposition of moral science. But, unfortu- 
nately for this position, there are as grave errors 
in the moral science of the Bible as there are 
in its astronomy, geology, ethnology, etc. There 
is, therefore, no way here for the Christian to 
escape an embarrassing dilemma. If the Bible 
is to be taken as a message from God, we must 
accept it as entirely divine. There can be no 
middle ground in the matter. If it is inspired, 
its authority must rest upon its infallibility. If 



THE BRAIN AND THE BIBLE. 



we can show it to be false in certain particulars ; 
if we can point out errors in certain parts, it 
then becomes subject to the decisions of our in- 
telligence as to the truth of all its parts, and 
necessarily loses all its authority. However, 
our present inquiry has to do solely with the 
truth of the fundamental doctrines of the Bible, 
and if we can show that these are opposed to 
reason, they must still be unworthy of our be- 
lief whether they are inspired or not. 



THE FALL OF MAN. 67 



CHAPTER II. 

THE FALL OF MAN. 

IF Adam ever existed in reality, it will hardly 
be denied that his cerebral organization 
must have been either complete or incomplete; 
perfect or imperfect. If complete, and perfect, 
his brain would have presented a harmonious 
configuration, and a development chiefly in the 
upper and frontal regions. Furthermore, if a 
perfect brain ever existed, it must have produced 
a perfect mind. 

A perfect mental organization would be, of 
course, one in which all the various faculties 
would act harmoniously, the intellect and moral 
sentiments holding the supremacy. 

Now, if Adam was created perfect, his lower 
propensities must all have been entirely under 
the direction and control of his intellect and his 
moral sentiments, and, consequently, no thought, 



68 THE BRAIN AND THE BIBLE. 

no desire, no action, could have found sympathy 
in his mind unless approved by his moral sen- 
timents and intellect. 

All eminent orthodox writers agree that 
"sin" is sympathy with what is known to be 
wrong; a yielding or consent of the mind to 
sympathize with, or to do, something which the 
intellect decides is not right. ~No intelligent 
definition of sin can be given which does not 
agree with the one just stated. To say that a 
man commits a sin without being aware of it, 
is absurd. He may, indeed, unconsciously do 
wrong, that is, do an act which is in some way 
harmful ; but as long as his intentions are right 
and his thoughts pure, he can not be said to 
sin. 

If, by the words "perfect government," we 
mean any thing, we certainly mean at least a gov- 
ernment which would not consent to a violation of 
its established laws. And if the words " perfect 
moral nature " have any significance, they cer- 
tainly imply a combination of mental powers in 



THE FALL OF MAN. 69 

which it would be impossible for any of the 
lower faculties to act without the approval of the 
higher. For illustration, we know that there are 
thousands of persons who could never obtain the 
consent of their Conscientiousness and Benevo- 
lence to commit a willful murder. Why not? 
For the same reason that an ounce can never 
outweigh a pound. 

A perfect mental organization then, from a 
moral point of view, would be one in which 
Conscientiousness and the other moral faculties 
would exercise the same restraining power with 
reference to all the lower propensities, that they 
do in the case of the best people now in the 
world, with reference to the crimes of murder 
and theft. If a man can not possibly obtain 
the consent of his mind to commit a theft, he 
may be said to have a perfect moral nature so 
far as that particular crime is concerned. In 
fact, nothing is more frequently observed than a 
disposition on the part of individuals to indulge 
readily in certain peculiar vices, while they 



70 THE BRAIN AND THE BIBLE. 

would scorn to do other reprehensible things to 
which some of their neighbors would probably 
yield with scarcely any power of resistance. 
Thus, one man will indulge in excessive gluttony 
and drunkenness, and yet will abhor stealing. 
Another will steal, and yet will rigidly obey 
every physical law. The former would be a 
perfect character so far as theft is concerned, and 
the latter would be perfect so far as the abuse 
of appetite is concerned; while an entirely per- 
fect mental nature would preclude the possibil- 
ity of any vice or crime whatsoever. 

If Adam was created perfect he could not 
have sinned, because none but an imperfect na- 
ture can sympathize with wrong. If he was 
morally perfect at all, his perfection must have 
consisted in the supremacy of his moral faculties, 
and in a necessary incapacity to yield the reins 
of government to the lower propensities. And 
if his moral faculties had been supreme, his 
highest pleasure would have been in acting ac- 
cording to their dictates. It is, therefore, un- 



THE FALL OF MAN. 71 

reasonable to believe that such a man was ever 
created perfect, .and that, notwithstanding his 
perfect moral powers, he allowed the lower nature 
to overcome the higher. 

The idea of a perfect moral nature neces- 
sarily implies a complete moral restraining 
power ; and where this moral restraint is per- 
fect, no amount of temptation would be capable 
of overruling it. Such a mind would be as in- 
capable of vice as Nero was incapable of virtue. 
Imagine Xero being irresistibly tempted to a 
life of purity ! Could any thing be more absurd ? 
And yet it is surely no more inconsistent than 
to imagine a perfect man and woman being in- 
duced to steal. 

If it is objected that in a perfect mental or- 
ganization, the lower faculties would be subject 
to the same temptations as in any other com- 
bination, I answer, that from the very nature of 
the case, the greater the appeal to do wrong, 
the greater would be the offense to the moral 
sentiments ; and as in a perfect supremacy of 



72 THE BRAIN AND THE BIBLE. 

the moral forces, all sinful appeals to the lower 
propensities would elicit a corresponding resist- 
ance from the moral sentiments, of course the 
intensity of this resistance would keep pace with 
the force of the appeals to the lower faculties, 
thus entirely preventing the lower propensities 
from ever obtaining the consent of the moral 
faculties to indulge a criminal desire. Take, for 
example, a highly cultivated and refined lady, 
with large Benevolence, Conscientiousness, etc., 
and with small Destructiveness and Acquisitive- 
ness. Think of such a person being tempted to 
commit a murder for the purpose of robbery. 
That is, imagine her debating the question in 
her mind; her small Destructiveness and Ac- 
quisitiveness urging her to commit the deed, and 
her moral faculties protesting against it. With 
such a combination of faculties could there be 
any conflict in the mind, any debate, any temp- 
tation (i. e., tension) ? It would surely be an 
argument of only one side ; a simple decision 
of the moral faculties. The bare mention of so 



THE FALL OF MAN. 73 

terrible a crime would shock such a nature. 
Now, if the reader will picture to himself a 
mind in which the moral faculties exert a similar 
restraining power over all the inferior propensi- 
ties, he will have the idea of a perfect mental 
government. 

If Adam possessed such a perfect mental 
equipment, he would not and could not have 
sinned, because perfection implies complete moral 
restraint. On 'the other hand, if he was created 
imperfect, in yielding to sin, he would have 
undergone no constitutional change. That is to 
say, if he sinned in deed, he was a sinner in 
thought before he committed any outward act, 
and must have been originally endowed with a 
sinful nature. Or, in still other words, he must 
have been depraved before he fell, or he would 
not have fallen, and being already sinful, of 
course did not fall when he sinned. 

The Bible teaches that Adam fell. If he 
was created perfect, the idea of the Fall is ab- 
surd. If he was created imperfect, he then, in 



74 THE BRAIN AND THE BIBLE. 

sinning, simply acted out the nature with 
which he was endowed, and manifested a will 
which was necessarily evolved from his inherent 
organization and his environments. In the lat- 
ter case, God would have been directly responsi- 
ble for Adam's transgression. This can be shown 
more clearly, however, after a definition of the 
will. 

The mental faculties may be compared to 
the members of a jury or any legislative body. 
When a juror suggests a certain verdict, or a 
legislator proposes a bill, its adoption or rejec- 
tion depends upon the relative strength of its 
supporters and opponents. The operations of 
every individual mind are precisely analogous. 
When certain faculties approve, and others op- 
pose, a sort of debate or conflict ensues, and the 
result is the will. This result, or decision, 
stands in the same relation to the faculties that 
the verdict of a jury does to the jurymen, and 
is not by any means itself a faculty of the mind, 
as is popularly supposed. 



THE FALL OF MAN. 75 

Some quibblers try to make it appear that 
the will is a faculty of the mind by using the 
word faculty in the sense of indefinite ability or 
power. And because the mind has the capacity 
or power to evolve certain wills, or resolves, they 
say that it has the faculty to do so, and hence that 
the will itself is a faculty. This is, however, a 
very flimsy piece of sophistry. In the phrenolo- 
gical sense, the word faculty refers only to a 
mental manifestation which proceeds from a sin- 
gle cerebral center, or individualized part of 
the brain, as distinguished from combined activi- 
ties. Thus, Acquisitiveness is a distinct faculty, 
while selfishness is not. 

The will is always determined by the 
strongest faculties; either those which are per- 
manently strongest, or those which are for the 
time being strongest. For example, a merchant 
wills to go to a distant city to buy goods. He 
is prompted to do so by predominant Acquisi- 
tiveness ; the other faculties giving their consent 
to this gratification of the leading propensity. 



76 THE BRAIN AND THE BIBLE. 

But just as he is about to start upon his jour- 
ney, he learns that a malignant fever has sud- 
denly appeared in the city, whereupon he is 
so alarmed at the prospect of danger, that he 
immediately resolves, or wills, to remain at 
home. Wow, in this case, the merchant has a 
great deal of Cautiousness, as well as Acquisi- 
tiveness, and the former being suddenly excited, 
overrules Acquisitiveness and reverses the will. 
Surely nothing could be simpler than this, and 
yet, for centuries, philosophers have been trying 
to prove that the will is a faculty of the mind, 
and entirely free. 

Nothing is more erroneous than the suppo- 
sition that one can will to do any thing inde- 
pendently of his faculties. However, the objec- 
tion is often made that a man may have, for 
example, a strong proclivity to steal, which, 
though his master passion, he overcomes by an 
''effort of the will." But let us examine this 
so-called " effort of the will." We find, perhaps, 
that the man has very large Approbativeness, 



THE FALL OF MAN. 77 

which makes him so keenly sensitive to the 
opinion of his friends, that the fear of disgrace 
and loss of social position produces a feeling 
much stronger than the desire to steal. Or, he 
may be restrained by large Conscientiousness. 
The result is, he does not and can not obtain 
the consent of his whole mind to commit the 
crime of theft. Besides, he may be endowed 
with great Firmness also, which bestows the 
quality of persistence and steadfastness in a po- 
sition once taken. This faculty may be defined 
as the propensity to resist all influences tending 
to produce changes of purpose, and is the basis 
or source of the mental quality popularly known 
as "will power." Among the innumerable mis- 
conceptions in regard to mental science, perhaps 
none is more common than to confound the idea 
of will with that of "will power," or Firmness. 
A person may be almost totally deficient in 
"will power," and yet have as may wills as one 
endowed with the highest degree of Firmness. 
If there should be any difference, the individual 



78 THE BRAIN AND THE BIBLE. 

with small Firmness, on account of his vacillat- 
ing character, would be likely to evolve a 
greater number of wills than the other. 

The idea of a freedom possessed by every 
individual to evolve a will, is, by the advocates 
of " free-agency," strangely confounded with the 
idea of a freedom to evolve any will, than which 
nothing could be more illogical. Of course, 
every one is free to will to do whatever he is 
free to resolve to do, but it is certainly impossi- 
ble for him to will what he can not choose; 
that is to say, to wish what he can not desire. 
Now the theologians say that Adam was created 
a "free agent," and that he was perfectly free 
to sin or not to do so, but that he chose to sin. 
And their only explanation of his motive in 
choosing to sin, is, substantially, simply "because 
lie willed to do so." If we ask why he "willed" 
to sin, they answer "because he chose to do so." 
No one who will allow himself to analyze this 
singular doctrine can fail to see that it is utterly 
opposed to reason. 



THE FALL OF MAN. 79 

The Church says that any man is free to 
live a life of piety, "if he only will." Yery true, 
"if he only will;" but suppose he can not will. 
Suppose his animal nature is always stronger 
than his moral faculties. "Ah!" says the su- 
pernaturalist, "but he can ivill if he only resolves 
to do so." This is equivalent to saying that a 
man would be perfectly free to fly if lie only had 
wings. 

Freedom can be defined only as a condition 
which is unaccompanied by restraint. The less re- 
straint, the more freedom; and vice versa. It 
matters not in what form the restraint may be 
exercised, whether by bolts or chains, by the 
" silken cords of love," or by the lash of Consci- 
entiousness. Perfect freedom can exist only 
where there is an absence of all restriction, and 
if, as the Church teaches, Adam was perfectly 
free to sin, he could not have possessed any moral 
faculties 'whatever; which, supposing him to have 
been a perfect man, is, of course, the climax of 
absurdity. 



80 THE BRAIN AND THE BIBLE. 

Modern Calvinists hold that there is a radi- 
cal distinction between necessity and certainty. 
And while they do not teach that God decrees 
human volitions in such a sense as to make 
them necessary, they assert that he endows 
men with such tendencies, and surrounds 
them with such environments that they will he 
certain to act just as they do. They say also 
that the elect can fall away after regeneration, 
even totally and finally, but never will. K"ow 
can any theologian explain how it is possible to 
provide for the certain accomplishment of a re- 
sult, without interposing conditions the effects of 
which will be inevitable ? And if those condi- 
tions inevitably produce the desired result, is not 
the result a necessary effect of those conditions ? 
What constitutes certainty in a result, if it is not 
the necessary relation between cause and effect? 
How can God know that the elect never will 
fall awav, unless he is aware of certain condi- 
tions which would render it impossible for them 
to do so ? And since the predominant faculties 



THE FALL OF MAN. 81 

of the human mind necessarily determine its vo- 
litions, how can those volitions be said to be 
free? 

One of the chief reasons, perhaps, why peo- 
ple cling to the doctrine of "free-will," is be- 
cause every one is conscious of a freedom, or 
what seems to him to be a freedom, to do cer- 
tain things. But the narrowness of the limits 
in which we are all confined may be quickly 
seen if we attempt to reverse the decisions of 
our strongest faculties. Strange as it is, people 
do not stop to think that their own faculties re- 
strain them from certain actions. When sub- 
jected to analysis, nothing can be more obvious 
than the fact that every will is an effect, neces- 
sarily dependent upon adequate causes, and that 
the same causes must always produce the same 
will. "Man is free," says Lavater, "like the 
bird in the cage ; he can move himself within 
certain limits." 

As a product of nature, each human indi- 
vidual presents the agglutinated results of all 



82 THE BRAIN AND THE BIBLE. 

the influences which have ever affected him, 
from the remotest ancestor down. The causes 
of the will are, therefore, chiefly the causes which 
have combined to produce the personality of the 
individual, and are often determined before he 
becomes a conscious entity. Thus we are all free 
to evolve whatever wills do not conflict with 
any of our desires or impulses, and the amount 
of freedom we possess with regard to a partic- 
ular will, must depend upon the number and 
power of the opposing influences. 

In view of these facts, is it not utterly im- 
possible to render credible the fabled fall of 
man ? And if this aecount is a myth, is not 
the whole system of orthodoxy also a human in- 
vention? If Adam never fell, we certainly have 
no need of any Redeemer. But what says the 
Church on this point? One Commentator re- 
marks: "It is difficult to conceive how our first 
parents, being holy, could sin. But as we have 
the fact, it is not necessary to inquire into the 
philosophy beyond what is given." This well 



THE FALL OF MAN. 83 

illustrates the spirit of blind faith so character- 
istic of theologians. They begin to study the 
Bible with the preconceived idea that it is a 
supernatural book, and when they meet a con- 
tradictory fact, they simply ignore it, or boldly 
assert that the Bible transcends science, and 
does not need to be reconciled with logic. 

But such evasions will not silence the eager 
inquiries of the present generation. It will no 
longer suffice to say that the "Fall of Adam" 
is a " mystery" which God never intended us 
to understand. In fidelity to our deepest con- 
victions we must admit that the storv of Eden 
is simply an oriental fiction. In the foundation 
of orthodoxy it is only a lump of crumbling clay. 
It never has been, and never can be, reconciled 
with our only possible criterion of truth. 



84 THE BRAIN AND THE BIBLE. 



CHAPTER III. 



CHANGE OF HEART. 



ONE theologian says : " The great majority 
of those who take the Bible as the rule of 
their faith, have always understood it to teach, 
that, since the fall, all men are wholly depraved — 
distitute of all holiness, and disposed only to sin. 
In this belief, they are sustained by many of 
the plainest declarations in the inspired vol- 



ume." 



This doctrine is clearly contradicted and 
disproved by the fact that all goodness, or holi- 
ness, proceeds from the brain, and that, other 
things being equal, the development of the brain 
determines the amount of goodness. Some have, 
to be sure, more than others ; but nearly all 
persons ha^ve, by nature, a certain endowment 
of the superior faculties, and to assert that all 



CHANGE OF HEART. 85 

men are inherently disposed only to sin is an 
exceedingly gross error. 

It would probably be no exaggeration to say 
that all systems of supernatural religion origi- 
nated in consequence of ignorance respecting the 
constitution of the mind. The ancients observed 
the weaknesses and follies of mankind, and as 
they were ignorant of the dependence of the 
mind upon the brain, it was quite natural for 
them to attribute all mental phenomena to the 
influence of spirits. Good thoughts were sup- 
posed to be suggested by good spirits, and evil 
thoughts by evil spirits. Something was evi- 
dently defective in human nature, and so it was 
supposed that man must have "fallen*" from 
some previous state of perfection. It did not 
occur to them that perhaps the human race was 
slowly ascending, and had never before occupied 
so high a plane. Our savage progenitors simply 
reversed the order of development. If they had 
known a little more of nature, the idea of Adam 
and the Fall would never have been conceived. 



86 THE BRATN AND THE BIBLE. 

But after the acceptance of this fiction, it be- 
came a matter of profound interest to discover 
some method of regaining that which was sup- 
posed to have been lost. As evil was held to 
be the offspring of a malignant spirit, it was 
therefore natural to think that only a good 
spirit could counteract it. This view of sin and 
its remedy is the popular one to-day throughout 
the world. Theologians still teach that human 
depravity emanates from Satan, and that only 
Divine Grace can " cleanse the heart from all 
unrighteousness, etc." 

But what light does science throw upon this 
question ? Simply that sin is the direct result 
of a diseased or imperfectly balanced brain ; a 
purely natural cause, the natural and only thor- 
ough remedy for which is to develop and 
cultivate the superior cerebral centers so that 
they will be supreme in power, or to re-estab- 
lish the health of the brain, as the case may 
require. 

The so-called "change of heart" is nothing 



CHANGE OF HEART. 87 

more or less than an awakening to special ac- 
tivity of the superior brain centers, particularly 
Conscientiousness, Veneration, and Wonder. Its 
rationale is no more wonderful, no more super- 
natural, no more difficult to understand, than the 
arrows of Cupid, whose subtle power is daily 
manifested among the youth of our acquaintance. 
When any of the emotional centers, for the first 
time, or after a long period of dormancy, sud- 
denly become aroused to great activity, the ef- 
fect is perceptible in the manifestations of all 
the other faculties. When a young man is for 
the first time conscious of a deep, chivalrous, 
and unselfish love for a pure and noble girl, 
every thing around him seems changed. The 
whole world is brighter; the flowers are more 
fragrant, and the birds sing more sweetly. He 
never before so thoroughly appreciated music. 
He now has a pleasant and friendly greeting for 
every person he meets. He is conscious of a 
tenfold greater ambition than he ever felt be- 
fore. In short, he has been "born again." 



88 THE BRAIN AND THE BIBLE. 

Much that he once loved he now hates, and 
many things he once hated he now loves. He 
feels new life welling up within him. He is 
physically stronger than formerly, and his men- 
tal perceptions are all sharpened. Now, this is 
no imaginary picture. It is something with 
which all are familiar, either by personal ex- 
perience or by observation. But who thinks of 
attributing this form of " new birth " to the in- 
fluence of any supernatural power ? We all ad- 
mit that a pure sexual love, "la grande passion" 
is simply natural. And if so, what evidence 
have we to suppose that the phenomena of re- 
ligious regeneration are not also produced simply 
by natural causes? The Christian may answer 
that sexual love is something which spontane- 
ously springs up in all minds, without any effort 
to elicit it, and that it more frequently needs to 
be restrained than encouraged ; while religious 
sentiment is repugnant to the natural mind, and 
is the result only of a subjection of the carnal 
nature, and a yielding to the Will of God ; all 



CHANGE OF HEART. 89 

which is accomplished only through the assist- 
ance of Divine Grace, and is therefore a super- 
natural process. Of course, this sounds very 
plausible. And with such ideas of the mental 
constitution, it is doubtless quite natural for one 
who believes his "heart" has been "renewed," 
to insist that he "knows" his religion is no 
"cunningly devised fable." He tells us that he 
feels in his soul the comforting voice of the 
Holy Spirit bearing witness with his spirit that 
his sins are forgiven, and that he is now an 
heir to salvation. Moreover, his "heart" as- 
sures him that he "can not be mistaken." 

But let us look for a moment below the sur- 
face here. Briefly stated, the difference between 
sexual love and the effects produced by the so- 
called "spiritual" faculties, consists simply in 
this, that Amativeness is a purely selfish faculty 
possessed by man in common with the lower an- 
imals, and is likely to be strongly developed be- 
cause of the exceedingly numerous causes which 
lead to its excitation ; while the faculties which 



90 THE BRAIN AND THE BIBLE. 

produce religious sentiment are found in their 
greatest strength only in the human mind ; are 
among the highest faculties possessed by man; 
are purely unselfish, and hence are not so likely 
to be predominant. It seems to be a law of 
mental development that the higher the organ- 
ism, the more susceptible it is to variation. The 
violin is the most sensitive of all musical instru- 
ments, and for this reason it is capable of a 
greater variety of expression than any other. 
Thus the human brain is the most sensitive and 
complex of all mental instruments, especially as 
regards the coronal or sincipital centers, and 
hence is the most susceptible to modifying in- 
fluences. As the lower animals occupy a lower 
and much simpler plane of development, they 
are exposed to a much more limited number of 
modifying influences, and consequently the indi- 
vidual members of each species present a much 
greater uniformity in appearance and in intelli- 
gence than is found in the human race. It is, 
therefore, evident that all the inferior propensi- 



CHANGE OF HEART. 91 

ties, common to man and the lower animals, 
such as Amativeness, Alimentiveness, Acquisi- 
tiveness, Secretiveness, Combativeness, Destruct- 
iveness, etc., are more frequently well developed 
than Conscientiousness, Benevolence, Veneration, 
Ideality, etc., simply because the climate, the 
food, the education, in short, all the influences 
which tend to produce and strengthen the basilar 
nature, are more abundant than the refined at- 
mosphere of poetry, philosophy, justice, humil- 
ity, and philanthropy. 

It is, however, a great mistake to suppose 
that sexual love, or any other one of the lower 
propensities, is spontaneously active in every in- 
dividual, and that it may always be aroused to 
activity by trivial circumstances. There are 
thousands of persons naturally so deficient in 
Amativeness, that the very thought of marriage 
is repugnant to them. Others never have any 
desire to accumulate wealth, and never learn to 
economize. The same is true of all the faculties. 
They are developed in all imaginable combina- 



92 THE BRAIN AND THE BIBLE. 

tions. One individual "makes a hobby" of mu- 
sic, but greatly dislikes merchandising. Another 
is completely absorbed in literature, though de- 
testing mathematics, while a third holds in utter 
disregard every thing that does not promote the 
interests of his religion. It is simply a question 
of cerebral development. Allow me to remark 
that whenever I speak of the effect of the brain 
upon character, I always mean to include the 
influence of quality, temperament, education, etc., 
as well as the condition of size. The size of the 
cerebral centers, however, is the primary point 
to be considered. Education may modify pre- 
dominant tendencies, but it never wholly eradi- 
cates them. It is true that "just as the twig- 
is bent the tree's inclined"; but still Ave can 
never convert an oak twig into a pine tree. For 
the convenience of the expression, at least, I 
shall continue to speak of size as the source of 
power in the brain. Thus, if a man inherits, or 
otherwise acquires an excessively large cerebel- 
lum, he is very susceptible to sexual love, per- 



CHANGE OF HEART. 93 

haps bestows his affection upon some playmate 
when a mere child, and continues to love some 
one all his life. lie can not recall a time when 
he did not feel that some one of the opposite 
sex was necessary to his happiness ; that is, he 
can not recollect when he underwent any change. 
Another man can not recollect a time when he 
was not passionately fond of music. There never 
was any particular moment when the love for 
music became suddenly aroused in his mind. 
In short, he was born a "convert" to music, 
simply because of a peculiar cerebral organiza- 
tion. In like manner, a great many persons in- 
herit a large endowment of Conscientiousness, 
Yeneration, Wonder, Hope, and Benevolence, with 
deficient animal propensities, which prompts them 
even in early childhood to do what they believe to 
be right ; to venerate superiors ; readily to give ear 
and credence to all accounts of marvelous events ; 
to cling to the ideas taught them concerning im- 
mortal life ; and to practice charity, and all the 
other so-called Christian virtues. Such persons 



94 THE BRAIN AND THE BIBLE. 

are frequently baptized in infancy, taught moral- 
ity and trained to habits of religious devotion ; 
literally nursed in the bosom of the Church, and 
while yet children, become members of a relig- 
ious organization. In later years, when they are 
more matured, they anxiously ask themselves, 
"Am I converted ? " "Have I really been 'born 
again ' ? " They apply to themselves the tests 
upon which they have been taught to rely in 
this matter, and they find that they have the 
evidence of the "new birth," although they can 
not recollect when the "change" took place. 
They love to do right, to worship, pray, etc., and 
as they have been taught that such feelings are 
not natural, and can come only from Divine 
Grace, they conclude that they have indeed been 
"regenerated," and that this "change" has been 
effected by a supernatural agency. 

Now, to any one acquainted with the con- 
stitution of the mind, it is, of course, very plain 
that no miraculous " change " or spiritual birth 
ever occurs in such cases, but simply that cer- 



CHANGE OF HEART. 95 

tain physical conditions determine every phase 
of religious feeling. Sincere piety is never known 
to be manifested except by those persons who are 
endowed with a peculiar cerebral organization, 
and it is certain that no person not thus consti- 
tuted can be truly pious. If "regeneration" is 
a supernatural process, w T hy does it never take 
place in individuals who do not possess a pecu- 
liar development of the superior parts of the 
brain. 

It is a popular belief that men of the vilest 
and most depraved character are often instantly 
converted, and become models of goodness and 
piety ; but there could not be a greater delusion. 
It is not true that such individuals belong to 
the "most depraved" class. In every instance, 
they will be found to possess the cerebral centers 
of the moral sentiments just in proportion to the 
amount of morality or piety they feel after con- 
version. To this there never is, and never can 
be, an exception. In cases where men have led 
very w T icked lives, and have suddenly embraced 



93 THE BRAIN AND THE BIBLE. 

Christianity, and become very pious, they will 
always be found to possess a large development 
of the centers in the base of the brain, combined 
with a large, or at least a fair, development of 
the "moral centers" also. Such combinations 
occur very frequently, and may be found in every 
church. Such are the individuals who generally 
"backslide" during the summer, and return 
again to the church at the annual winter "re- 
vivals." They also, when first converted, often 
need to pray with great assiduity and patience 
before they receive the "blessing," as it is called. 
It is quite an interesting psychological study to 
observe their efforts at the " mourners' bench," 
keeping in mind the peculiar conditions with 
which they believe it is necessary to comply in 
order to " obtain religion." The method is 
somewhat as follows: First, the seeker must be- 
come " convicted," which means that he must 
become profoundly impressed with a sense of his 
un worthiness and guilt. Second, he must have 
"faith"; that is, his intellect must be brought 



CHANGE OF HEART. 



to believe that by renouncing all sympathy with 
sin, and by a total surrender to Christ, he will 
receive pardon, and his " heart" will be radi- 
cally changed. Third, he must then resolve to 
give up every thing displeasing to God, and 
throw himself wholly and unreservedly upon 
Jesus as his Savior. The instant he makes this 
surrender, "in faith," he is to receive the "bles- 
sing," which is the token of his acceptance, and 
which will then constitute him a "child of 
God." 

Let us now examine this process. First, it 
is necessary to be convicted of sin. The first 
step in this operation is through the intellect, 
which simply decides upon the fact of sin hav- 
ing been committed. This being presented to 
the whole faculties, a reversed action of Consci- 
entiousness follows, producing the feeling called 
remorse. Here we perceive the natural cause 
of the supposed influence of the Holy Ghost in 
awakening " Godly sorrow for sin." And let 
me remind the reader that the intensity of re- 



THE BRAIN AND THE BIBLE. 



morse is always in proportion to the develop- 
ment of the cerebral center of Conscientiousness. 
Second, the penitent must have " faith" that 
Jesus is ready and willing to forgive and " bless" 
him. Now, as I have explained in the first 
chapter, "faith" is belief accompanied by the 
emotion of Wonder. In this case, there must 
be an intellectual conviction or assurance that 
there is a Divine Spirit hovering near, looking 
into the souls of men, and waiting for their per- 
mission to enter and take possession. Then this 
belief excites the faculty of Wonder, producing 
an emotion which is recognized as "faith." 
This explanation will account for the fact that 
" faith " is often used as a synonym for confi- 
dence or belief, and perhaps quite as often in 
the sense of an emotion. It should not be for- 
gotten that the intensity of " faith " as an 
emotion, is always in exact proportion to the 
cerebral development of Wonder. Third, the act 
of " entire surrender," which is often very diffi- 
cult, is simply the consent of all the faculties, a 



CHANGE OF HEART. 99 

will, to yield completely to the wishes of Christ; 
and the powerful inhibitory emotion accompany- 
ing this action is produced by the great excita- 
tion of Veneration. The result of this complex 
mental operation, this " new birth," is thus sim- 
ply an awakening to unusual activity of these 
higher faculties, with, at the same time, a sub- 
jection or suppressed activity of the lower pro- 
pensities. The effect upon the mind, called by 
Methodists the "blessing," truly a very exalted 
and happy condition, is produced, first, by the 
relief afforded the faculty of Conscientiousness 
by the knowledge of having faithfully performed 
every known duty; second, by the tender, hum- 
ble, submissive feeling caused by the excitation 
of Veneration; and third, by a kind of -ecstasy 
produced by the faculty of Wonder. 

Those who are acquainted with mesmerism 
will be struck by the great similarity of these 
two classes of phenomena. Religious trance and 
the mesmeric sleep are unquestionably identical 
as regards the fact of their mutual dependence 



100 THE BRAIN AND THE BIBLE. 

upon a peculiar influence of certain activities in 
the brain, although, of course the first links in 
the chain of causes producing this cerebral ac- 
tion may not be the same in both cases. It is 
a physico-psychological law that each propensity, 
when excited, has the power through the me- 
dium of the sympathetic nervous system to effect 
such changes in the action of the vital organs 
as will facilitate its gratification. For example, 
when Combativeness is aroused, and the feeling 
of anger is produced, the action of the vital or- 
gans is immediately accelerated. The heart 
beats faster, and the blood circulates more 
rapidly, thus preparing the body for a violent 
conflict, although it may be that no thought of 
a physical encounter has so much as entered the 
mind. The observation has been made thou- 
sands of times that men become almost super- 
humanly strong when very angry, although few 
understand the philosophy of it. When Alimen- 
tiveness is greatly excited, the appetite pre- 
sumes, so to speak, that something is about to 



CHANGE OF HEART. 101 

be eaten, and forthwith the necessary fluids are 
secreted for the first steps in the digestive pro- 
cess. Nearly every one has noticed the sensa- 
tion of saliva flowing into the mouth at the 
mere sight of acid fruit. Vitativeness, or love of 
life, exerts a wonderful influence upon the vital 
action, and when strongly developed, often en- 
ables its possessor to conquer diseases to which 
persons differently constituted in this respect 
would very readily succumb. Of the vivifying 
and exhilarating effects of Amativeness I have 
already spoken. It would also be unnecessary 
to describe the well-known power of Hope to 
"lighten the heart." The faculties I have just 
named, together with a few others of the same 
character, are all invigorating, or exhilarating, 
in their normal effects, and may be denominated 
the exalting propensities. But there is another 
class which, from their inhibitory influence, may 
be called the depressing propensities. These 
are, chiefly, Veneration, Wonder, Imitation, 
Cautiousness, and Secretiveness. The former 



102 THE BRAIN AND THE BIBLE. 

class, for the most part, belong peculiarly to the 
male sex, and constitute the executive, aggress- 
ive, or positive elements of character ; while the 
inhibitory faculties are negative, and peculiarly 
feminine. The reader will, therefore, readily 
perceive that it is the especial b province of the 
latter class to offset all undue manifestations of 
the positive faculties, in order to secure har- 
mony in the operations of the whole mind. 
Thus, Veneration counteracts Self-Esteem ; Imi- 
tation modifies Firmness ; Cautiousness restrains 
Combativeness ; Benevolence softens Destructive- 
ness, etc. And as the exalting propensities im- 
pel the vital organs to act with great energy, 
the depressing faculties proportionately diminish 
the vital action. For example, when Cautiousness 
is greatly affected, the feeling we call fear is 
produced, and a great depression of the vital 
action immediately takes place. Digestion ceases, 
and the whole body is almost paralyzed. In 
fact, this depression has often been known to 
occur so suddenly, and with such a shock as to 



CHANGE OF HEART. 103 

> . ^ 

cause instant death. Again, many persons are 
affected by a chronic excitement of this faculty, 
often in utter ignorance of the cause, and finally 
die from its subtle effects. That is, they are 
frightened to death, although by imperceptible 
degrees. All are familiar with the shriveled 
face which artists give to the ideal miser. It 
always has a warped, mean look, and is never 
represented as bright and cheerful. Here we 
see the effects of Acquisitiveness and Secretive- 
ness, with deficient Hope, Mirthfulness, etc. 

Bearing these familiar facts in mind, the 
reader will be prepared to understand how Ven- 
eration and Wonder also exert a peculiar influ- 
ence upon the vital functions. When excited in 
an ordinary degree, the emotions produced by 
these faculties are highly agreeable and health- 
ful; but when aroused to a state of abnormal 
excitement, particularly in the case of individ- 
uals who are temperamentally very susceptible 
to such influences, they are capable of producing 
a variety of injurious effects, which, while pre- 



104 THE BRAIN AND THE BIBLE. 

• 

senting many features in common, are greatly 
modified according to circumstances. Among 
these phenomena may be enumerated religious 
trance, the " new birth," or " change of heart," 
mesmeric sleep, hypnotism, hysteria, hallucina- 
tion, catalepsy, ecstasy, witchcraft, etc., etc. 
One noticeable circumstance attending all these 
manifestations, is the diminished circulation of 
the blood, evinced by coldness of the extremi- 
ties, paleness of the face, etc. As the ancients 
frequently observed such symptoms accompanying 
mental excitement, of course it was but natural 
for them to conclude that the heart was the 
seat of the affections. And while modern sci- 
ence shows that the heart is the source of 
neither good nor evil, we see that good or evil 
emotions do affect the heart. However, in the- 
ology it seems to be the rule to reverse the 
order of facts. 

The investigator of psychological phenomena 
who has ever attended a " religious revival," 
can not have failed to observe that the minis- 



CIIA NGE OF HE A RT. 105 

ters, and others who assist the penitents at the 
"altar of prayer," urge upon them especially 
the necessity of two conditions ; viz., "faith," and 
"entire surrender." Now, it is the intense ef- 
fort of the seeker to make this complete "sur- 
render," which directly and powerfully excites 
Veneration ; while the belief or expectation that 
a supernatural change is about to take place in 
the mind, is peculiarly adapted to stimulate 
Wonder. From the circumstance that Venera- 
tion restrains the energy of the vital functions, 
giving to the whole mind a subdued, mellow 
tone, w T e can easily understand why persons 
habitually in this beatific condition should im- 
agine themselves assisted by Divine Grace. 
The faculty of Wonder, although primarily ex- 
cited by intellectual cognitions or beliefs, in its 
turn, together with Veneration, stimulates the 
intellect to a contemplation of the highest con- 
ceivable ideals, and in this manner does much 
to elevate the mind above the sphere of the 



106 THE BRAIN AND THE BIBLE. 

lower propensities. But is there any thing- 
supernatural in this? 

I have already referred to the powerful in- 
fluence of Cautiousness. It is well known that 
in ordinary dreams this faculty often incites the 
intellect to conjure up scenes of terror which 
are indescribably vivid and real to the imagin- 
ation. Upon this principle then, why may not 
all the other depressing faculties exert a similar 
influence upon the intellect? And if in ordin- 
ary dreams at night, why not in a species of 
extraordinary dreams by day? That the cere- 
bral center of Wonder, when unusually developed, 
together with certain temperamental combina- 
tions, is frequently the immediate source of 
visions, apparitions, and a great variety of 
strange impressions, can not admit of the 
slightest doubt, in view of the numerous obser- 
vations made by Phrenologists. The curious 
reader can find descriptions of a great many 
such cases in the works of Gall, Spurzheim, and 
Combe. Indeed, all history abounds in instances 



CHANGE OF HEART. 107 

of these phenomena. Shakespeare, who prob- 
ably possessed a deeper intuitive perception of 
human nature than any other man who has 
ever lived, recognized not only the influence of 
cerebral action in creating illusions, but also the 
change in the circulation of the blood, which 
accompanies the trance state. As an example, 
note the following words between Hamlet and 
his mother : 

" Queen. — This is the very coinage of your brain: 

This bodiless creation ecstasy 

Is very cunning in. 
Hamlet. — Ecstasy ! my pulse, 

As yours, doth temperately keep time, 

And makes as excellent music." 

Hamlet denies having any symptoms of 
trance, but we have too much evidence bear- 
ing on such cases to believe him. Besides, 
there are almost infinite phases of ecstasy, in 
many of which the changes in the heart's pul- 
sations are barely perceptible. 

Christians of nearly all sects point to fre- 



108 THE BBATN AND THE BIBLE. 

quent examples of what they are pleased to de- 
nominate miraculous cures in answer to prayer, 
etc. But if the faculty of Cautiousness can 
depress the life currents so as to cause death, 
why may not the exalting propensities produce 
equally marked results of an opposite character? 
In view of the numerous cures effected through 
mesmeric influence, why should we attribute 
any similar phenomena to forces outside of na- 
ture? There are numberless well authenticated 
cases of cutaneous excrescences being removed, 
and various other like effects, by simple faith 
in some foolish charm. The imagination wills 
the result, and forthwith the circulation of the 
blood to the affected part is either suspended, 
or increased, as the circumstances may require. 
The famous so-called miracle of the " Stigmata," 
said actually to occur in Roman Catholic coun- 
tries, may easily be accounted for on this prin- 
ciple. It also appears probable that many of 
the alleged miracles of Christ may have had 
some real foundation in certain mesmeric ]A\e- 



CHANGE OF HEART. 109 

nomena, which, of course, eighteen hundred 
years ago, would have been greatly exaggerated, 
and explained only on the hypothesis of super- 
natural power. 

But thus much is certain : no man can " en- 
joy religion," as the Methodists express it, un- 
less he has well developed Veneration and 
Wonder. And for all believers in supernatural- 
ism, whose brains are developed chiefly in the 
sincipital regie*, it is very easy to practice re- 
ligious exercises ; while those whose low T er pro- 
pensities are very greatly predominant never 
become sincerely devotional. Of course this fact 
is usually denied by supernaturalists, but it is 
nevertheless demonstrably true. 

Some, however, are willing to concede that 
the Holy Spirit operates on the mind only 
through the medium of the brain, and only in 
harmony with certain fixed and unalterable cere- 
bro-organic laws ; but the moment this is admit- 
ted, it must be conceded also that there is no 
evidence of a supernatural agency in these phe- 



110 THE BRAIN AND THE BIBLE. 

nomena. The majority of theologians teach that 
man is by nature entirely destitute of holiness, 
but science demonstrates that all persons inherit 
it in some degree, while very many are natu- 
rally endowed with a great deal. 

At this point, it may be well to mention 
that the word natural may be construed to have 
two meanings which ought to be clearly defined. 
First, we often say a thing is natural if it is 
produced independently of any •human effort. 
Second, we may use the word simply in the 
sense of that which is opposed to the super- 
natural, thus including everv thing which is ac- 
complished without the aid of the supernatural, 
whether it be through voluntary human effort, 
or through the spontaneous action of impersonal 
natural forces. It is in this latter sense that I 
use the word. Thus I sav that the goodness in 
humanity is natural, because it is independent 
of the supernatural ; and yet it often requires 
much personal effort to develop it. 

The position of the Church, as is well 



CHANGE OF HEART. Ill 

known, is, that any one can " experience relig- 
ion," independently of any particular cerebral 
development. In fact, the whole idea of the 
culpability of those who reject Christianity, is 
based upon that error. But how inconsistent 
this is, when, at the same time, it is universally 
admitted that idiots can not be converted, and 
are not responsible for any of their acts ! And 
now, how will Christians dispose of all the 
moral idiots in the world? In the face of mil- 
lions of facts, they simply deny that such per- 
sons exist. But, I wish to ask, if all persons 
can become moral and religious, why is it that 
some never do ? It will not suffice to answer 
that it is because they do not "choose" to do 
so. It is very obvious that they do not "choose" 
to do so. But why is their choice thus ? If it 
is not because of their organizations, what other 
explanation can be given ? 

It is unnecessary to dwell longer upon this 
subject. The fact is incontrovertible that the 
brain makes the man, and there is not only no 



112 THE BRAIN AND THE BIBLE. 

evidence to show that gods or demons have any 
part in the formation of character, but we have 
excellent proof that such is not the case. Christ- 
ians ought to bear in mind that if we do not 
happen to know the cause of a phenomenon, it 
does not necessarily follow that a supernatural 
agency has produced it. And now that mental 
physiology has demonstrated the dependence of 
all moral sentiment upon the brain, they ought 
to be more modest in their use of the verb "to- 
know." The great mass of mankind are both 
by nature and education (or the lack of it) illogi- 
cal, and comparatively few persons appreciate 
the distinction between knowledge and belief. 
Various kinds of evidence may induce us to be- 
lieve, but we can not know any thing except that 
which is demonstrable by fact. Phrenological 
facts prove that certain cerebral developments 
are necessary to the sincere expression of all 
the higher as well as all the lower qualities of. 
mind, and hence, so far as we can know any 
thing in this world, we know that all mental 
manifestations are only natural. 



THE PLAN OF SALVA TION. 113 



CHAPTER IV. 

THE PLAN OF SALVATIOX. 

THE story of the curse pronounced upon 
the human race, and all the circumstances 
of the vicarious atonement, are so familiar that 
it will be unnecessary to repeat them here. 
We will, therefore, proceed at once to discuss 
the merits of the scheme for man's redemption. 
First, then, of what benefit is this "Plan"? 
The Church must concede one of two things : 
It is eitiier necessary to believe in Christ in 
order to escape an eternity of pain, or it is not 
necessary. If it is not absolutely necessary, 
what is the meaning of the declaration, "He 
that believeth not shall be damned " ? If it is 
not always necessary, and if the heathen and 
other honest unbelievers may be saved, why 
preach the dogma of faith, or insist upon its 
importance? It is idle to say that it should be 



114 THE BRAIN AND THE BIBLE. 

preached simply because the Almighty has or- 
dered it. The question is, is there any thing 
reasonable in the command? Is not the very 
absurdity of it sufficient evidence that no God 
ever gave it? The Church replies: "It is nec- 
essary for all to belieA^e who have heard the 
Word.' 1 The senselessness and injustice of this 
doctrine may be shown in the fact that belief 
does not depend upon volition. Circumstances, ed- 
ucation, inherited or acquired prejudices, in 
short, the evidence presented to the intellect, is 
the sole cause of belief. No matter in what 
form the evidence is presented, belief can spring 
from nothing else. And as it is utterly impos- 
sible to believe a thing simply by willing to do 
so, to require a man to believe that which is 
opposed to his reason would violate every prin- 
ciple of equity. 

Is it logical to suppose that a God of in- 
finite love ever devised a scheme for the salva- 
tion of the human race, and then permitted 
circumstances to defeat the operation of the 



THE PLAN OF SALVATION. 115 

scheme in the case of the millions who have 
never even heard of it? Admitting that those 
will be saved who have never heard the Gospel, 
what is the difference, morally, between them 
and the honest skeptics who have heard and 
yet are wholly unable to believe? The Bud- 
dhist, for example, of course can not believe in 
Christianity if he has never heard of it. And, 
if simply hearing of a thing is enough to in- 
spire confidence in it, why does not the Christ- 
ian believe in Mohammedanism, or the Jew in 
Buddhism?. To the sincere Roman Catholic, 
the weight of evidence which has come to his 
mind seems to him to favor the Bom an 
Church, and he can not resist this belief. Just 
the opposite is true of the Protestant. To the 
Humanitarian, who has examined all creeds, and 
found all forms of supernatural religion based 
upon ignorance of nature, the weight of evi- 
dence is, as a mountain to a pebble, in favor of 
the Cause of Humanity. He can not resist the 
force of the evidence presented to his mind 



116 THE BRAIN AND THE BIBLE. 

against supernaturalism, and so he is driven to 
believe simply in nature. Now, could a being- 
possessed of any justice or mercy punish one of 
his own children for an honest conviction? It 
must be conceded that circumstances control the 
belief of all individuals, and while Christians 
admit that their God is the author of all circum- 
stances, they deny that he is the author of any 
man's belief or unbelief. This inconsistency 
grows out of the erroneous doctrine of free- 
agency. Every will, every belief, is a result of 
organization and environment, and if any God 
has created the mechanism of the human mind, 
he must be responsible for the working of that 
mechanism, in the same sense that a man is 
responsible for the striking of a clock, although 
he may not have touched it since he made it 
and set it in operation. Qui facit per alium, 
facit per se. Would the maker of the clock 
have a right to deny his responsibility for its 
striking, on the ground that the striking was 
produced solely by forces within the clock? 



THE PLAN OF SALVATION. 117 

Surely not ; for if he made the clock, he com- 
bined the forces which compelled it to strike, 
and he is therefore responsible for the action of 
those forces. 

Many theologians of the present day admit 
that faith, in the sense of an intellectual con- 
viction, does not depend upon volition, and that 
it is always determined by the evidence pre- 
sented to the understanding; but they say the 
kind of faith necessary to salvation is a consent 
of the whole faculties to a life of purity, etc. 
However, this is only disguising the difficulty, 
and presenting it in another form. It is wholly 
unimportant how we define the word faith. No 
matter what that condition of mind may be, if 
it is a condition of the mind at all, or an act 
of the mind, it must result from organization 
and circumstances. Hence, if there is any G-od 
who is the author of the human mind and the 
circumstances of its development, he alone is 
responsible for every operation of that mind, 



118 THE BRAIN AND THE BIBLE. 

whether it be faith and submission, or doubt 
and disobedience. 

To the objection so frequently offered, that 
this doctrine involves an utter denial of all 
moral responsibility, and discourages wicked men 
from all efforts to reform, I would say, non 
seqaitur. Science does not affirm that all men 
are destitute of moral restraining faculties, or 
that individuals can not improve themselves by 
exercising such controlling forces as they may 
possess ; but simply that individual responsi- 
bility is to be estimated by individual restrain- 
ing power. As to the responsibility of criminals 
under a civil code ; of course society must pro- 
tect itself whether men can control their pas- 
sions or not. But the wants of society can not 
be compared with the conditions of an omnipo- 
tent Creator, because the latter would need no 
protection. 

It is often said that " God made us and has 
a right to do with us as he pleases." To this 
we reply that might does not make right. If 



THE PLAN OF SAL VA TION. 1 1 9 

there is a God of infinite power, and he creates 
an immortal soul, knowing that it will suffer an 
eternity of pain, he can be nothing else than an 
infinite fiend. It can only shock the sympathies 
and confuse the intellect of an unwarped mind, 
to be told that such a being is infinitely kind, 
loving, and merciful. As to the doctrine that 
"the natural heart is averse to God," we freely 
admit that no unpolluted heart can love a God 
who would establish an institution for the end- 
less perpetuation of suffering. "But," says the 
Christian apologist, " if these things are terrible, 
and incomprehensible to our finite minds, the 
Bible teaches them, and therefore they must be 
true nevertheless." To this we repeat, that for 
the very reason the Bible does teach these in- 
famies, it must be simply a human invention. 

However, admitting that any particular be- 
lief, or the acceptance of any particular creed, 
or the attainment of any particular mental con- 
dition whatsoever, is necessary to salvation, how 
is the mind to be guided to it ? This is an im- 



120 THE BRAIN AND THE BIBLE. 

portant question to the honest unbeliever. If 
the condition is reached at all, it must neces- 
sarily be acquired in one of three ways. It 
must come either as a "gift cf God," or by rea- 
son, or by accidental circumstances. Now let us 
briefly examine each of these methods : 

First, if this "saving faith" is a "gift of 
God," and he purposely withholds it from cer- 
tain men, could any thing more unjust be con- 
ceived than that he should then damn those 
men? If it is God's plan to inspire faith in 
the minds of all who are to be saved, is he not 
then responsible for the skepticism and* conse- 
quent punishment of all disbelievers ? Some 
Christians hold that faith may be obtained by 
prayer. But how is the sincere Infidel to pray 
when he has not even the slightest degree of 
confidence in prayer ? To ask a confirmed Atheist 
to pray for faith is about as rational as to advise 
a drowning man to swim to the shore for a 
boat. There are thousands of noble men and 
women who have not faith enough even to begin 



THE PLAN OF SALVATION. 121 

to pray, and if orthodoxy is true, they must suf- 
fer eternally, or else it is not orthodox doctrine 
that belief in Christianity is essential to sal- 
vation. 

There is no possibility here of evading a 
dilemma. If belief is an absolute requisite to 
salvation, then the millions of sincere disbe- 
lievers must suffer the most heinous injustice 
conceivable. Or, if no such condition is abso- 
lutely necessary, then the story of the atonement 
becomes a fable, and the plan of salvation a 
farce. What was the need that Christ should 
die to save the believing sinners if the disbe- 
lievers can be entitled to the same salvation? 
And if honest Infidels can not be saved the 
same as believers, then God is measurelessly un- 
just and cruel. 

It is sometimes admitted that if a man 
should live a pure life, that is, exhibit the sin- 
lessness of a Christian, without faith, there 
might be some hope of his salvation. But if it 
is conceded that simple morality, or honest de- 



122 THE BRAIN AND THE BIBLE. 

votion to the Religion of Humanity, can entitle 
a man to salvation, is not this a positive con- 
tradiction of every fundamental teaching of the 
Christian religion as distinguished from Athe- 
istic or Humanitarian philosophy? If the skep- 
tic can fare as well as the believer, of what 
value are Christ's words to Nicodemus : "Ex- 
cept a man be born again, he can not see the 
kingdom of God"? Why should a man be con- 
verted, or "born again," if he can be endowed 
with the elements of holiness at his natural 
birth ? And that this is possible can no longer 
be denied. It is vain to say that lofty-minded 
Infidels are indebted to careful training in child- 
hood, or Christian parentage, for their moral ex- 
cellence. It is now conceded by the most 
eminent theologians, that all the moral prin- 
ciples of Christianity were taught and practiced 
by heathen philosophers who never heard of 
Christ or the Christian Bible. Hence, there 
can be no reason why men to-day can not attain 
the same development independently of Christ- 






THE PL A N OF SAL VA TION. 1 23 

ian dogmas. But, granting, for the sake of ar- 
gument, that the word belief, used in the Bible, 
does not necessarily mean belief at all, and that 
to avoid any reflection upon the justice of God, 
it may be interpreted to mean "good works," 
or purity of character; the question still re- 
mains, would there be any justice in God's con- 
signing even a wicked man to everlasting pain, 
when the very cause of his depravity was an 
organization and an environment which em- 
anated solely from God himself? If a man is 
inherently vile, and disposed only to evil, is he 
not an object of pity, rather than revenge? 
There are idiots in morality as well as idiots in 
intellect; and although society is justified in 
forcibly restraining such unfortunate persons, in 
self-defense, why should an omnipotent God, 
whom they can not harm, after creating them, 
inflict upon them a kind of punishment, which, 
in cutting off the possibility of reformation, 
could serve only to gratify the malignity of a 
demon ? 



124 THE BRAIN AND THE BIBLE. 

Second, if faith is not an especial gift of 
God, and if it is proper that we should be guided 
by reason in the selection of a creed, ought we 
then to be cast into a "lake of eternal fire" for 
choosing a belief or disbelief which is in strict 
accordance with our reason ? If the Roman 
Catholic Church should indeed be the "Allein- 
seligmachende" and our reason tells us it is but 
a corruption of the true fold of Christ, and that 
Protestantism expresses the true will of God, 
ought we to be punished for being Protestants? 
But suppose our reason assures us that neither 
Romanism nor Protestantism, nor any other 
form of supernaturalism is worthy of credence, 
ought we then to be held guilty because we 
still remain true to our convictions? Surely 
but one logical answer can be given to this 
question. 

Third, if we do not receive our "saving- 
faith" as an especial divine gift, and dare not 
trust to the voice of reason, there can be but 
one other way left; viz., by accident. That any 



THE PL A N OF SAL VA TION. 125 

soul could merit endless torment for not being 
aware of certain conditions which only accident 
or chance could make known, is an idea which 
of course needs no discussion. We are thus 
compelled to admit that no Deity could justly 
require human beings to observe any conditions 
whatsoever as necessary to salvation, since the 
possibility of our observing the conditions would 
rest with him alone, and he would therefore 
himself be responsible lor every case of non-ac- 
ceptance. 

With regard to these obvious defects in the 
Scheme of Redemption, orthodoxy has given and 
can give but one reply; viz., " There is no sin- 
cere Infidelity." And it is worthy of note that 
in the New Testament no special provision is 
ever mentioned for honest unbelief on the part 
of any who have heard the Gospel. ■ However, 
nothing is easier demonstrated than the ex- 
istence of millions who conscientiously reject the 
supernaturalism of the Bible in the face of 
every argument that can be presented in its de- 



126 THE BRAIN AND THE BIBLE. 

fense. And linked with this fact the conviction 
must come to every candid and reflective mind, 
that the Plan of Salvation is consistent with 
neither the constitution of human nature, nor 
any logical conception of a just or merciful God. 



IS NATURE SELF-EXTSTENT1 127 



CHAPTER V. 

IS NATURE SELF-EXISTENT ? 

T A PLACE was once asked by Napoleon why 
-*— ' he made no mention of God in his " Celes- 
tial Mechanism." The astronomer replied : "Sire, 
je n 1 avais pas besoin de cette hypotliese." [Sire, I 
had no need of this hypothesis.] 

The idea of a God was first conceived in 
the efforts of primitive man to account for the 
existence and operations of the universe, and to 
this day it is only a hypothesis. If there is a 
personal Deity, he has never revealed himself as 
such. However, science does not assert that 
there is absolutely no God, but simply that there 
is none to us. There is no logical evidence of 
his existence, and until such evidence is pro- 
duced, we have no reason to doubt that Nature 
includes the All. 

But if there is a power superior to nature, 



128 THE BRAIN AND THE BIBLE. 

he must be an embodiment of matter and force, 
because force is inconceivable apart from matter. 
And he must either have created himself or 
have existed from eternity. Now, if we can be- 
lieve in an eternally self-existent or self-created 
God, who is more wonderful than the universe, 
why can we not believe in an eternally self- 
existent universe ? It is certainly just as reason- 
able to suppose that nature has the power to 
produce what we see, as to say that a personal 
being is the author of nature ; and more reason- 
able, because we are confronted by the fact that 
the operations of nature do not spring from cap- 
rice or chance, but are in every case preceded by 
causes which do not vary from certain inexorable 
laws. Now, if there is a personality able to control 
nature, why does he never manifest himself ex- 
cept in accordance with these inflexible condi- 
tions ? It is thought by many that the laws of 
nature can not properly be said to be invariable, 
because one law often interrupts the effects of 
another ; as in the case of a storm, when the 



IS NA TUBE SELF-EXISTENT ? 1 29 

lightning destroys a growing tree. The tree 
grows according to one law, and the lightning 
checks its growth in accordance with another 
law. This is no contradiction, however, because 
it is clearly a general law of nature that the 
effects of one law may thus clash with those of 
another. What is meant by " invariableness of 
natural law," is this : Like causes always pro- 
duce like effects. That is, in all cases where 
the causative conditions are the same, the ef- 
fects will be the same, without exception. This 
is nature, and it is what is meant by the 
natural as opposed to the supernatural. Now, 
for example, it is a law of cerebral physiology 
that a man with a brain like that of Calig- 
ula, Vitellius, or Pope Alexander VI, is more 
prone to vice than to virtue. And if one instance 
can be shown where this rule is reversed, then 
we will admit that theology is not without a 
basis in fact. But until it can be demonstrated 
that like causes do not always produce like effects, 
we shall be forced to accept Nature herself as 
the ultimate mystery. 



130 THE BRAIN AND THE BIBLE. 

To say that God is a spirit, is simply giv- 
ing a definition of which we can form no con- 
ception, and using a word which is valueless ex- 
cept as a symbol for our ignorance ; and to say 
that God created the world from nothing, is the 
climax of absurdity. JEx niliilo nihil Jit is an 
axiom which needs no proof. We are therefore 
driven to the conclusion that the universe, as an 
entirety, has existed from eternity, or, at least, 
that if there is a God, his hand is nowhere dis- 
cernible in sublunary affairs. If we are to be 
happy and useful, it must be by our own exer- 
tions, and by the assistance of circumstances. 
The result is just the same to us whether we 
are produced by a Deity or by the inherent ac- 
tivities of impersonal matter, since we are sub- 
ject to an inexorable government. Besides, if 
there is a Supreme Being, he does not need our 
homage. Suffering humanity deserves all our 
attention. 

To a logical and unprejudiced mind, nothing 
can be clearer than that man has progressed 



IS NA TURE SELF-EXISTENT f 131 

just in the proportion that he has learned to 
rely upon his own efforts. Those of the nations 
and individuals who succeed in accomplishing 
much that is great and good, and who profess 
to trust in Providence, will always be found to 
act out in their real lives the policy of the In- 
fidel. They follow the advice of Cromwell to 
his soldiers: "Trust in God, but keep your pow- 
der dry." 

Belief in "special providences" is, from its 
very nature, necessarily antagonistic to reliance 
upon natural forces, and the world never will 
appreciate the importance of obeying the laws 
of nature until the popular ideas of divine su- 
perintendence over human effort are wholly dis- 
carded. Admitting that there is a Creator, if 
he never interposes to save us from the conse- 
quences of our mistakes, of what advantage is 
it for us to believe in him ? It will not satisfy 
the thinkers of to-day to talk of "blessings," or 
wonderful cures in answer to prayer, etc. None 
of these things afford the slightest proof that 



132 THE BRAIN AND THE BIBLE. 

theology is not a chimera. There are many 
things within the infinite domain of the natural 
which we do not understand, hence, occasional 
phenomena which we can not explain by any 
known process, furnish no evidence for the ex- 
istence of forces outside of nature. The only 
method by which it would ever be possible to 
demonstrate the existence of a Deity, would be 
to bring forward a greater array of facts against 
the principle that "like causes alwa}^s produce 
like effects," than we now possess in favor of 
that principle. It would be necessary to pro- 
duce more instances of reversed natural laws 
than we now possess evidences of their invari- 
ableness. In other words, it would be necessary 
to observe a greater number of phenomena un- 
accompanied by discernible causes than we have 
already observed in connection with their causes. 
So long as the preponderance of evidence is in- 
dicative of a fixed natural order, all inexplicable 
phenomena which might appear to contradict 
this principle, should be regarded as within the 



IS NA TURE SELF-EXISTENT? 133 

domain of nature, although not explainable by 
any process with which we have as yet become 
acquainted. But, if the time should ever come 
when the exceptions to the rule are more 
numerous than the examples of it, then it will 
be proper for us to renounce the rule, and not 
until then. 

It seems remarkably easy for the defenders 
of any one creed to detect the absurdities in 
every other, and hence there is scarcely a par- 
ticle of evidence to be found to-day favoring the 
existence of a Supreme Being, which has not 
been condemned as worthless by theologians 
themselves, if we take their own admissions 
made from time to time. Thus the whole Bible 
is thrown away between the Jews and the Lib- 
eral Christians. The former reject the New 
Testament entirely, while the latter discard the 
Old, or at least hold such views of it that they 
might consistently reject it altogether. For ex- 
ample, Dr. Robert Collyer says the Old Testa- 
ment is a " rotting tree." David Swing thinks 



134 THE BRAIN AND THE BIBLE. 

it is a "poem." Another eminent divine looks 
upon it as a " picture," while still another says 
that the question of truth "as applied to any 
ancient book is simply nonsense." 

In the same manner, the champions of theol- 
ogy differ respecting the evidences of a Deity 
to be drawn from the automatic or unconscious 
activities of the material world. The most pro- 
found class, of which we may take the cele- 
brated anti-phrenologist, Sir William Hamilton, 
as a representative, freely concede that the phe- 
nomena of inorganic matter indicate nothing 
more than the blind mechanical march of cause 
and consequence ; the necessary expression of an 
inexorable and impersonal absolute, which, so far 
from giving any support to the hypothesis of a 
Creator, would, on the contrary, ground even an 
argument against it. But orthodox philosophers 
usually, as is well known, assert that this very 
inflexibility, order, and precision, in the opera- 
tions of the physical world, show the "handi- 
work" of a great personal architect. 



IS NA TUBE SELF-EXISTENT ? 135 



So much for "spiritual discernment"! And 
how strange it is that Christians do not more 
readily detect the unsoundness of the methods 
by which their leaders arrive at such antago- 
nistic conclusions ! 

However, while the most learned theists find 
no evidence of a God in the manifestations of in- 
organic matter, all are united in basing their 
faith especially upon the phenomena of mind. 
The psychical activities they suppose are but in- 
directly, or partially, and at most only tempor- 
arily, subject to material restrictions, and in no 
sense goverried by such immutable laws as con- 
trol the material world. In short, all orthodox 
Christians hold that the human mind may act 
independently of organism, and that it may be 
influenced to good through the operation of the 
"Holy Spirit," or poisoned by the machinations 
of " Satan," irrespective of any particular cere- 
bral structure. 

We can easily understand how such a view of 
the mental constitution was suggested to our 



136 THE BRAIN AND THE BIBLE. 

primitive ancestors who knew nothing of the re- 
lations between mind and brain ; but it is de- 
plorable, to say the least, that such a miscon- 
ception should still be popular throughout the 
world. 

To-day, we know with as much certainty as we 
need to know any thing, that force is not inde- 
pendent of matter, and that the activities or 
manifestations of brain substance, which w r e call 
mind, are not only inseparable from the brain, 
but modified by every varying shade of develop- 
ment or susceptibility in the cerebral organiza- 
tion. All this is more than proved by Phre- 
nology ; hence it follows that the laws of organic 
matter are as invariable as those of inorganic mat- 
ter, and that mental phenomena are but links in 
the eternal chain of cause and effect, which are 
as mechanically necessary as the expressions of 
the grossest substance. In view of this fact, then, 
can we wonder that the Church should still be 
hostile to the philosophy of Gall? Truly this 
conflict is one in which there can be no compro- 



IS NATURE SELF-EXISTENT? 137 

mise. Either matter is self-existent and auto- 
matic or it is not. If it is self-existent, and if 
force is impossible apart from matter, then it 
must be conceded that the phenomena of mind 
are, after all, only the phenomena of matter, 
since mind is but an expression of organic mat- 
ter, and subject to the same mechanical necessity 
as the inorganic world. And since the most 
scholarly theists admit that the phenomena of 
inorganic matter, from their purely automatic or 
mechanical nature, tend to refute the idea of a 
Deity, we have virtual authority from the Church 
herself, that all phenomena, by whatsoever name, 
not only afford no evidence in favor of a God, 
but, on the contrary, clearly point to his nega- 
tion. 

We may summarize the argument in the fol- 
lowing propositions : 

1. The most profound Christian metaphysicians 
concede that the phenomena of inorganic matter 
refute the hypothesis of a Creator. 



138 THE BRAIN AND THE BIBLE. 

2. Phrenology demonstrates that all phenomena 
have a purely material basis, and that the ac- 
tivities of organic matter, called mind, are, in 
point of mechanical necessity, virtually identical 
with those of the inorganic world. 

3. Therefore, the greatest minds in the Church 
logically admit that all phenomena contradict the 
notion of a God. 

But what of miracles ? Very little indeed. 
A genuine miracle, that is, a violation of the 
order of nature, would, unquestionably, point to 
the existence of a Deity ; but where did a miracle 
ever occur? From the preponderance of evi- 
dence we now possess demonstrative of Nature's 
sovereignty, we are compelled to account for 
every reputed miracle in one of two ways: 
First, nothing occurred at all. Or, second, if 
any thing really took place, it was a phenome- 
non depending upon some purely natural forces 
probably unknown to those who saw it. A sus- 
pended law of nature would be excellent evi- 
dence if such a thing could be substantiated ; 



IS NATURE SELF-EXISTENT? 139 

but any thing so extraordinary as a miracle 
could not be proved by any thing short of 
another miracle ; and, if we really saw one, we 
could never be certain that we recognized it. A 
miracle, to have any value, must be an inter- 
ruption of an established order of nature ; but 
the very evidence which would establish an or- 
der of nature would be fatal to the miracle. 
Only a G-od superior to nature could make a 
miracle possible, and nothing short of a genuine 
miracle could prove the existence of a Grod. 
Hence, to establish either, it is necessary first 
to prove the other, which leaves both absolutely 
destitute of any support. 



140 THE BRAIN AND THE BIBLE. 



CHAPTER VI. 

THE DESIGN AKGUMENT. 

THE next line of reasoning to which the 
theologian appeals, is the one based upon 
the apparent design exhibited throughout the 
world, and especially in the wonderful mechan- 
ism of man. This famous argument is exceed- 
ingly interesting to the logician, being, as it is, 
one of the most remarkable sophisms ever 
evolved from the human mind. Many of the 
leading Doctors of Divinitv now see the weak- 
ness of it, and admit that the labored efforts of 
Paley and others in this direction can afford no 
satisfaction to any logical thinker, from the fact 
that the solution they give is more inexplicable 
than the problem. But while all genuine schol- 
ars readily perceive the shallowness of "Paley- 
ism," the great mass of theists of all classes 
still suppose that it is unanswerable. To per- 



THE DESIGN ARGUMENT. 141 

sons of superficial reflection, the wonderful 
adaptation of means to ends in the various ob- 
jects of nature seems necessarily to point to a 
great designer outside of nature. For example, 
we are told that these adaptations could not 
have been produced by chance ; that they could 
not have made themselves ; in short, that they 
could have been produced only by an adequate 
cause, and that this cause must have been a 
personal intelligence. Now, no Materialist will 
assert that the fitness and order in nature have 
come by chance, or that they have not been pro- 
duced by adequate causes. But we do say that 
there is no logical evidence to show that the 
causes of these adaptations are independent of 
certain unvarying laws, or that they have per- 
sonality. The question is, is it true that adap- 
tation, order, and harmony are always and 
necessarily evidence of design ? Can it be stated 
as a first premise, that adaptation in an object 
always implies that it must have been designed 



142 THE BRAIN AND THE BIBLE. 

and created? The teleological syllogism is sub- 
stantially as follows : 

1. All objects exhibiting adaptation musl 
have been designed. 

2. The objects in Nature exhibit adap- 
tation. 

3. Therefore, Nature must have been de- 
signed. 

Wow, a logical argument is a method of 
proving a certain statement by showing that 
it is contained or implied in some other state- 
ment the truth of which is already admitted. 
Thus we may say: 

1. All men are mortal. 

2. Thomas is a man. 

3. Therefore Thomas is mortal. 

Here the conclusion, " Thomas is mortal," 
is logical, because it will be granted that all 
men are mortal, and that Thomas is a man. 
The premises in a syllogism must always be 
admitted at the outset, or else they must be 
supported by a careful induction of facts. That 



THE DESIGN ARG UMEN T. 1 43 

is to say, they must be proved ; otherwise the 
conclusions deduced from them would be worth- 
less. But let us examine this first proposition. 
"All objects exhibiting adaptation must have 
been designed." Is this statement universally 
admitted? Is it sustained by any induction? 
Does it rest upon a universal observation and 
experience? Or is it merely an assumption? 
If we look at the mechanism of a watch, we 
readily and correctly infer that it was planned 
and constructed by a personal intelligence; in 
fact we know that it was, because we are ac- 
quainted ivith its history. But suppose we con- 
template the sublime evolutions of the planetary 
systems, or the intricate and subtile machinery 
of the human body. Can we say that these 
were contrived by a person? Do we know that 
they were? Have we any logical evidence that 
they were? JNTone whatever; simply from the 
fact that under any conceivable hypothesis re- 
garding the origin of the universe, we must 
admit the existence of order and adaptation in 



144 THE BRAIN AND THE BIBLE. 

some form, which never were created or designed, 
and which are equally as wonderful as any 
thing in nature, if not infinitely more so. For 
if we refuse to accept the universe with its ac- 
tivities as eternally self-existent, and imagine 
some great personal being as its author, we 
must admit that he would necessarily possess 
quite as much order and fitness as the universe, 
else he could not create it. Therefore, since it 
is thus clearly demonstrable that some form of 
adaptation can and does exist which is no evi- 
dence of design, it is obviously absurd to assume 
that all complex and harmonious objects of 
whose history we are ignorant must be the 
work of a designer. And yet this assumption 
is the essential foundation of the whole teleolog- 
ical argument. 

Dr. Paley asserts that the Deity possesses 
the peculiar quality of self-sustenance, or self- 
sufficiency, wherein his nature differs from that 
of all other beings, and which renders it unnec- 
essary that he should have had an antecedent. 



THE DESIGN ARG UMENT. 145 

But why might we not as easily say all this of 
matter ? 

The chief difficulty in this subject is due to 
the fact that people will not stop to reflect that 
if there were a God, his organism (whether ma- 
terial or spiritual), if it could be examined, 
would necessarily display even more fitness, 
order, harmony, and adaptation, than are now to 
be found in nature. However, if it be objected 
to this that the fitness and order in God are 
eternal, and therefore unlike the transitory phe- 
nomena of nature, we reply, that while many of 
the adaptations in nature have indeed had a be- 
ginning and will soon cease to be, before the 
teleologist can show that the order and harmony 
in a God would be essentially different from the 
adaptation in the universe, he must prove that 
matter itself can not be self-existent, and eter- 
nally possessed of a fitness or adaptation to evolve 
the particular manifestations which we behold. 
Since matter is indestructible, it must be eternal ; 
and if it is eternal, its properties or forces must 



146 THE BRAIN AND THE BIBLE. 

also be eternal or self-existent. Hence, so far as 
we can logically determine, the universe, as an 
entirety, is impersonal, and contains within itself 
the causes of all phenomena. At all events, it 
is no solution whatever of the mystery of exist- 
ence to say that nature has been created. For 
if nature is the work of a creator because it is 
complex and wonderful, then that creator must 
himself have been created, because he is wonder- 
ful. If twice two apples make four apples, twice 
two oranges must make four oranges. If it is logi- 
cal to say of one organism whose history we do 
not know, that because it is wonderful in its 
construction, it must have been produced by a 
personality outside of it, then it must be equally 
logical to say the same of any and every other 
wonderful organism whose history we do not 
know. Now, it is certain that we do not know 
the complete history of the human species, and 
if we believe that there is a God, we must also 
confess our utter ignorance of his origin, so that 
whatever we assert a 'posteriori of one such un- 



THE DESIGN ARGUMENT. 147 

known history, must be equally applicable to 
every other. Therefore, if man must have been 
produced by a personal Deity because the hu- 
man mechanism exhibits a wonderful adaptation 
of means to ends, then that Deity must also have 
been produced by a creative personality external 
to him, for the reason that the organism of a 
God must be even more wonderful in its adap- 
tation and harmony than that of man. And if 
God must have been created because he is won- 
derful, his author must also have had an ante- 
cedent still more wonderful, and so on, ad infin- 
itum. Thus, wherever we dare to stop in this 
interminable series of creators, we find ourselves 
at the very point from which we started; viz., 
face to face with an eternally self-existent Abso- 
lute. And in the form of an anthropomorphic 
Deity, it presents a problem even more difficult 
and unsatisfactory than an uncreated impersonal 
universe. Since this is true, we perceive that 
before we can establish the major premise in 
the design argument, we must demonstrate the 



148 THE BRAIN AND THE BIBLE. 

very idea which the whole syllogism itself is in- 
tended to prove; viz., that the universe is the 
work of a personal intelligence. 

George Combe, although himself a theist, 
in speaking of Paley, Durham, and other de- 
fenders of the argument from design, makes the 
following unanswerable and sweeping criticism 
upon their method: " So when it is asserted by 
these writers that whatever shows marks of de- 
sign must have had an intelligent author; and 
that the world shows marks of design, they 
virtually assert that the world had an intel- 
ligent author. But this is assuming that to be 
true, which the atheists deny, and which, in 
fact, is the very proposition that they them- 
selves pretend to be establishing. In short, the 
attempt to ascertain in this way the "being of 
God, is merely a tautological play of words; in- 
asmuch as his being must be proved, before the 
premises can be laid down." 

What more need be added? We have 
seen that order and adaptation either in the 



THE DESIGN ARGUMENT. 149 

form of a universe or in the form of a God, 
must have existed from eternity, and that that 
which has existed from eternity could not have 
been designed. If there is a personal creator, 
he must be an organism possessing an adapta- 
tion to create ; and if he has existed from 
eternity we must admit that the adaptation in 
his organism never was designed. And if there 
is no God, of course we must admit that the 
order, adaptation, and harmony in nature never 
w r ere designed. These facts prove that the 
adaptation in nature is in reality no evidence 
whatever of an intelligent cause, and that the 
whole design argument is without any logical 
support. 

The unfair methods by which theologians 
usually try to evade this difficulty, may be well 
illustrated by the reply once made by Dr. Ly- 
man Beecher when asked by his students how 
they should answer Infidels who told them the 
argument from design proved too much. " They 
assert," said the students, "that if every ap- 



150 THE BRAIN AND THE BIBLE. 

parent design must have had a designer, there 
may be twenty Gods." The Doctor replied: 
"Well, you tell them that if there is one God 
it will go hard with them, and if there are 
twenty it will go harder yet." Is it strange 
that Christian ministers are illogical after re- 
ceiving such training? However, Joseph Cook, 
who relates this story, pretends to give a " sci- 
entific answer," a discussion of which the reader 
will find in the succeeding chapter. 

Many persons who in some degree perceive 
the feebleness of the design argument, admit that 
the idea of an uncreated God is as difficult of 
comprehension as an uncreated universe, and 
then they ask, "if one of these problems is as 
great as the other, which we concede, what ob- 
jection do you have to our uncreated God ? " 
We reply that we object simply because there 
is no evidence that such a being exists. The 
ladder of design by which the theologian reaches 
God, extends through all infinity. If we take 
one step upon it, we must climb on and on for- 



THE DESIGN ARGUMENT. 151 

ever. As it can bring us to no resting place, 
why should we begin such a fruitless journey? 
Supernaturalists ought not to insist that there 
is a God until they brino- forward some evi- 
dence of his existence, and so long as there is 
no such evidence, they ought not to ask why 
we wish to dethrone the Deity. "But," they 
ask again, "if the adaptations in nature do not 
jDrove a designing cause, how were they pro- 
duced ? We answer, that although we can not 
trace the ultimate processes by which these results 
were effected, when we say that Nature produces 
them by a power within herself, we at least give 
quite as much of a real solution as those who 
ascribe all phenomena to an inconceivable per- 
sonality outside of nature. The word God, the 
so-called "first cause" taught by theology, is 
only a sort of algebraic x in the problem of the 
universe. The scientist accepts the difficulty at 
the outset, instead of simply removing it beyond 
his immediate sight. The explanation offered by 
theologians has been aptly compared to the folly 



152 THE BRAIN AND THE BIBLE. 

of the ostrich with its head concealed in the 
sand. It is only a hoodwink. A "first cause" 
of nature outside of nature is a logical impossi- 
bility. The universe is simply an animated in- 
finitude of matter ; a self-contained circle of 
causes and effects. The theologians ought to re- 
member that it devolves upon them to prove 
that there is something mightier than matter; 
not upon us to prove there is not. But while the 
rules of* logic do not require us to prove our 
negative, we can, nevertheless, explain very 
much of the apparent design in nature. We can 
now account for a great deal which only a few 
years ago was regarded as utterly inexplicable. 
The great scientists are every day discovering 
more and more. Scarcely any eminent scholars 
now dispute the leading principles of Evolution 
and Natural Selection. With the slightest clue 
to these great laws, what shall we, with our 
limited knowledge of nature's history, presume 
to say may not have been effected by their in- 
fluence during the eternity of the past ? In im- 



THE DESIGN ARGUMENT. 153 

agination we anthropomorphize the absolute, and 
then suppose we have mastered the problem of 
the universe. We deify the subjective ego of 
man "projected into objectivity," and regard it 
as the source of all wisdom and the solution of 
all mystery, while we contemptuously look upon 
nature as a materialization of impotence. But 
do we really understand Nature ? Have we un- 
locked so many of her secrets that we can say 
she must be under the dominion of a God ? Our 
ignorance should teach us modesty as well as 
logic. Why should we presume to fix. a limit to 
the properties of matter, when we have scarcely 
learned the alphabet of science ? And here let 
me say of scientists, that they have as much 
right as any class of men, to theorize and specu- 
late in regard to the unknown and the unknow- 
able. But it is very unfair to make no distinc- 
tion between their conflicting hypotheses and 
their numerous positive demonstrations, as our 
opponents are often disposed to do. ]STo scientist 
holds that any speculation is strictly a part of 



154 THE BRAIN AND THE BIBLE. 

science. We ask simply that what we offer 
may be accepted at its real value, whether it is 
fact or hypothesis. 

It is also objected to our idea of the 
eternity of the universe, that we have " no per- 
sonal observation of it." True, we have not; 
but has the theologian any personal observation 
of the eternal existence of a God? In the first 
chapter I have already shown that there is a 
radical difference between the two positions. 
Theology, with its anthropomorphic Deity, its 
book-revelation, its pretended miracles, etc., is 
not only unsupported by our experience, but is 
diametrically opposed to it. On the other hand, 
while we can not by personal experience prove 
the eternity of the universe, such an idea is 
quite in harmony with our experience. In the 
same manner, theologians object that Infidels re- 
ject Christ and yet admit the existence of 
Homer, Demosthenes, and other equally ancient 
characters. It is true we admit the existence 
of all ancient personages of whose lives we have 



THE DESIGN ARGUMENT. 155 



credible history; but when history asserts events 
connected with their lives which are plainly op- 
posed to reason and universal experience, we 
reject such statements just to the extent of 
their unreasonableness. Thus we do not deny 
that Christ may have existed as a man; but 
that he was a supernatural person history fails 
to prove. 

Every principle of anthropomorphic theism 
involves contradictions. If God is a person, he 
must be restricted to the limits of an organism. 
Hence, to say that he is infinite in extent, is 
highly absurd. As well talk of an endless 
"yard-stick." If the Deity possesses organism 
and personality, these qualities can exist only as 
the result of environment, which of course pre- 
cludes the idea of infinity. Again, if God 
possesses benevolence, justice, anger, designing- 
intelligence, etc., such as are ascribed to him in 
the Bible, he can not be infinitely wise or 
powerful, because those attributes imply finite- 
ness and imperfection. An omniscient being 



156 THE BRAIN AND THE BIBLE. 

would not need to employ reason in acquiring 
knowledge. If he made any additions to his 
knowledge at all, he could not be omniscient. 
All the intellectual powers of which we can con- 
ceive imply limited knowledge, and the very 
words "infinite intelligence" involve an ab- 
surdity. "For," as Prof. Fiske has well said, 
"to represent the deity as a person who thinks, 
contrives, and legislates, is simply to represent 
him as a product of evolution. The definition 
of intelligence being 'the continuous adjustment 
of specialized inner relations to specialized outer 
relations,' it follows that to represent deity as 
intelligent is to surround deity with an environ- 
ment, and thus to destroy its infinity and its 
self-existence." 

As to the other human faculties, it would be 
clearly impossible to exercise any of the passions 
or sentiments apart from finite relations to an 
external world. How could an infinite God 
have compassion, or sympathy, unless he suf- 
fered? And if he suffered how could he be 



THE DESIGN ARGUMENT. 157 

perfect? It is true the Church replies that 
God as Christ took upon himself the finite hu- 
man nature also. This is equivalent to saying 
that a circle can be both round and triangular 
at the same time. Furthermore, if God were 
omnipotent, how could he become angry? 
Anger proceeds only from Combativeness and 
Destructiveness. These faculties were born of 
the peculiar difficulties, dangers, and noxious im- 
pediments which abound in this world, and their 
exercise is inconceivable apart from environment 
and limited power. How absurd, then, to speak 
of "Divine Wrath," as though Omnipotence 
would ever need to manifest the chief charac- 
teristics of the lion and tiger! 

But if the theist admits the absurdity 
involved in the idea of an "infinite person," 
and accepts God as a being who acts only in 
harmony with fixed laws, and whose qualities 
are necessarily undefinable, incomprehensible, and 
unknowable, he then virtually becomes an Atheist 
in all the proper senses of that word. The 



158 THE BRAIN AND THE BIBLE. 

Agnostic, or Materialist, has no particular ob- 
jection to the syllable God, if it is used merely 
as a symbol to represent the unanalyzable ac- 
tivities of the universe ; but in such a sense the 
term is unnecessary. Hence we prefer to em- 
ploy simply the words Universe and Nature. 
The former to include the All as an infinite 
entirety, and the latter, which, from its etymol- 
ogy, means that which is born, to represent the 
more immediate activities and expressions of 
the universe. 

Thus, while rejecting an infinite personality, 
we do not deny the existence of an "All-uphold- 
ing," "All-enfolding " Absolute, of which we 
can know only as we are related to it through 
the peculiarities of our organisms. We do not 
wish to destroy any thing that is true and 
useful. We desire merely that the world may 
be taught to recognize Nature as the only 
source of goodness and happiness ; that the 
realities of life may be seen as they are, and 
that mankind may attain the highest and best 
development possible. 



JOSEPH COOK'S "SCIENTIFIC THEISM:' 159 



CHAPTER VII. 



JOSEPH COOK'S "SCIENTIFIC THEISM." 



OF all the fallacies in theological reasoning, 
some form of the " vicious circle," or cir- 
cular syllogism, is without doubt the most com- 
mon, as well as the most specious and subtle. 
Defined in general terms, it consists in proving 
the premises by the conclusion, and then the 
conclusion by the premises. In other words, as- 
suming or stating within one of the premises, 
something, the truth of which could never be 
established, or which would never be admitted, 
until after the demonstration of the conclusion. 
We have just seen a remarkable example of this 
kind in the preceding chapter. The whole argu- 
ment from design begs the question ; but the 
most singular feature about it is, that the lead- 
ing theologians, perceiving their error, now come 



160 THE BBAIN AND THE BIBLE. 

forward with a new set of circular arguments, 
w T hich are, if possible, even more sophistical than 
the old. Of the champions of " Scientific The- 
ism," doubtless the most popular representative 
in the United States is Joseph Cook, of Boston. 
In his lecture entitled " Matthew Arnold's Views 
on Conscience," Mr. Cook presents what he calls 
the "scientific answer" to the obvious defect in 
Paley's reasoning. I quote verbatim: 

" But the answer is this : That we can not 
have a dependent existence without an independ- 
ent or a self-existent being to depend upon. All 
existence, to put the argument in syllogistic form, 
is either dependent or independent. You are 
sure of that ? Yes. Well, if there is a dependent 
existence, there must be an independent ; for 
there can not be dependence without something 
to depend upon, and an infinite series of links 
receding forever is an effect without a cause. 
Your axiom that every change must have an 
adequate cause is denied by the theory of an 
infinite series. You carry up your chain link 



JOSEPH COOK'S "SCIENTIFIC THEISM:' 161 

after link, and there is nothing to hang the last 
link upon. 

1. All possible existence is either dependent 
or independent. 

2. If there is dependent existence, there 
must be independent existence, for there can not 
be dependence without dependence on something. 
An endless chain without a point of support is 
an effect without a cause ; dependence without 
independence is a contradiction in terms. 

3. I am a dependent existence. 

4. Therefore there is independent existence. 
But independent existence is self-existence. 

1. All possible being is either self-existent 
or not self-existent. 

2. If there is being which is not self-exist- 
ent, the principle that every change must have 
an adequate cause, requires that there should 
exist being that is self-existent. 

3. I am a being that is not self-existent. 

4. Therefore, there is being that is self-ex- 



162 THE BRAIN AND THE BIBLE. 

istent. So, too, with exact loyalty to self-evident 
truth, we may say : 

1. All possible persons are either self-exist- 
ent or not self-existent. 

2. If there exist a person that is not self- 
existent, there must be a person that is self- 
existent. 

3. I am a person not self-existent. 

4. Therefore, there is a person who is self- 
existent. It is He." 

The introductory remarks, and the first four 
of these propositions, are, without doubt, substan- 
tially correct; provided, however, that we con- 
strue the third proposition to mean that man is 
"dependent" upon the universe in a relative and 
not in an absolute sense. In the second argu- 
ment, the first and second propositions are also 
logical ; but the third, " I am a being that is 
not self-existent," like the third proposition in 
the first argument, is true only in the sense that 
man did not attain personality by an act of his 
own volition ; or independently of certain reactions 



JOSEPH COOK'S "SCIENTIFIC THEISM." 163 

between his organism and its environments which 
were necessary to his development. The fourth 
proposition is admissible, provided Mr. Cook 
does not here attach to the word "being" the 
idea of organism or personality. Man is, of 
course, a " dependent " or contingent being, so 
far as regards the fact of his having become an 
organism without any exercise of his own will ; 
or in the sense that he is an objective expres- 
sion or manifestation of a certain force or ten- 
dency inherent in matter, which may be said to 
underlie his personality. Thus, relatively, his in- 
dividual organism is "dependent" upon this 
subjective force, or combination of forces and 
environments in nature; but, regarded absolutely, 
he forms a part of the eternally self-existent en- 
tirety of the universe. As an effect, he bears 
the same relation to the universe that the leaf 
does to the tree. A leaf is, relatively, an expres- 
sion of a process or function of the tree, and is 
dependent upon this function only for its form 
and individuality. But as an absolute existence, 



164 THE BRAIN AND THE BIBLE. 

it is a part of the tree, and is as independent 
of any forces outside of the tree as the tree 
itself is. Or, if it be objected to this illustration 
that the tree is not self-sustaining, we may com- 
pare man at once to the tree. Relatively, that 
is, as a definite structure, the tree is dependent 
upon its environments, such as earth, air, water, 
and light; but absolutely, its particles are com- 
posed of material elements found in earth, air, 
etc., thus forming a part of the universe as a self- 
existent whole. 

Let us now especially notice the second 
proposition in the third and last argument, viz.: 
"If there exist a person that is not self-existent, 
there must be a person that is self existent." As 
this is the pivot upon which the syllogism rests, 
if it can not be established as true, the whole 
argument must fall. Have we, then, any evi- 
dence that it is true? Does Mr. Cook offer 
any? JSTot the slightest. He simply assumes 
that nothing short of a divine Person could be 
an adequate cause of human personality. And 



JOSEPH COOK'S "SCIENTIFIC THEISM" 165 

this he does without any induction whatever to 
warrant such a notion. This proposition is only 
a subtle method of asserting that there is a 
Creator, because it is on all sides conceded that, 
in a relative sense, man is not self-existent; that 
is, not self-sustaining, or independent of his en- 
vironments. But what is the whole syllogism 
intended to prove ? Why, simply that there is 
a Creator. Could there be any greater sophistry 
than this? 

To make the "vicious circle" still more ap- 
parent, let us re-construct Mr. Cook's argument, 
and express it in words which will perhaps ad- 
mit of less ambiguity: 

1. All non-self -sustaining persons are caused 
by "a Self- Sustaining Person. 

2. I am a non-self sustaining person. 

3. Therefore, I am caused by a Self Sus- 
taining Person] i. e., by a God. 

Now, it will be clear to the reader that the 
first proposition here virtually contains an asser- 
tion that there is a personal God ; because, as 



]66 THE BRAIN AND THE BIBLE. 

I have already explained, all concede that man 
does not exist or sustain himself independently 
of certain conditions and environments external 
to his organism. It will be equally clear that 
the third proposition, or conclusion, contains the 
same assumption. Thus the whole argument is 
a circle. 

I have stated that man is relatively, non- 
self-existent, though when regarded absolutely, as 
a part of the indestructible entirety of the 
material world, he is self-existent. As this dis- 
tinction might afford some ground for cavil, I 
will say that in this case it is entirely unneces- 
sary for us to attempt to indicate man's exact 
relation to the universe. For the sake of the 
argument, we will concede that man is in no 
sense self-existent, and that he is contingent or 
dependent upon a "some-what" external to him- 
self. Wow, can, or does, Mr. Cook prove that 
this "some-what" is a " Some-One"? Admit- 
ting the third proposition, "J am a person not 
self -existent" upon what authority does Mr. 



JOSEPH COOK'S " SCIENTIFIC THEISM." 167 

Cook lay down the second proposition, " If there 
exist a person that is not self existent, titer e must 
be a person that is self existent " ? How is it 
possible to establish this premise, without first 
establishing the fourth proposition, or conclusion, 
which is, substantially, the assertion that there 
is a God ? Is there not here «a positive viola- 
tion of the rules of the syllogism, which require 
that the evidence supporting the premises must 
be gathered from external sources? Induction 
must precede deduction. We have no right to 
draw a particular conclusion from a general 
proposition unless the latter is already admitted 
or has been demonstrated. Mr. Cook's argument 
is about as logical as the following: 

1. All possible leaves either grow by them- 
selves, or upon trees, or something resembling 
trees. 

2. If there exist a leaf that did not grow 
by itself, there must be a leaf that did grow 
by itself. 



168 THE BRAIN AND THE BIBLE. 



3. The oak leaf is one that did not grow 
by itself. 

4. Therefore there is a leaf that did grow- 
by itself. 

The gratuitous assumption here in the sec- 
ond proposition, and the absurdity of the con- 
clusion, are of course apparent to every one. 
But is not this a counterpart of Mr. Cook's 
reasoning? Now, we see that there are no 
leaves growing by themselves. Moreover, we 
can not conceive of a leaf that did not grow on 
a tree, or something like a tree, and we are 
certain that the tree is mother to the leaf, 
though not itself a leaf. Why then may not 
matter be the parent of all human personality 
without being a person itself? We see the 
organisms of nature, and we know that they 
exist; but as we have not seen any Person 
behind them, where does Mr. Cook obtain his 
facts to show that there must be self-existent 
supernatural Personality to account for man? 
All reasoning must begin by observation. Has 



JOSEPH COOK'S "SCIENTIFIC THEISM." 169 

Mr. Cook ever observed any Person superior 
to Nature? Possibly in his dreams; surely 
nowhere else. But still he boldly asserts that 
the only adequate cause of human personality 
is Divine Personality. And this is his "sci- 
entific answer" to the acknowledged difficulty 
in the design argument. 

We find similar assumptions repeated in 
nearly all of his arguments for the existence of 
a Deity. Take, for example, the following propo- 
sition : " Since we are woven by a jjower not 
ourselves, there is thought in the universe not 
our own." Now, how does Mr. Cook know that 
this power proceeds from a Thinker? Has he 
observed all the potencies in the universe which 
have combined to weave us ? And if not, how 
can he describe them ? It is a contradiction in 
terms to speak of Infinite Thought, because the 
word thought means only the working of a brain, 
and thus implies environment. There may be 
something pervading all matter which resembles 
thought or mind; but the idea that exactly that 



170 THE BRAIN AND THE BIBLE. 

which we mean by these words can exist as a 
personality without a brain, conflicts with all our 
experience, and hence is wholly untenable. 

May I quote still another argument ? 

" 1. Every change must have an adequate 
cause. 

2. My coming into existence as a mind, free- 
will, and conscience, was a change. 

3. That change requires a cause adequate to 
account for the existence of mind, free-will, and 
conscience. 

4. Involution must equal evolution. 

5. Only mind, free-will, and conscience in 
the cause, therefore, are sufficient to account for 
mind, free-will, and conscience in the change. 

6. The cause, therefore, possessed mind, free- 
will, and conscience. 

7. The union of mind, free-will, and con- 
science in any being constitutes personality in 
that being. 

8. The cause, therefore, which brought me 



JOSEPH COOK'S "SCIENTIFIC THEISM." 171 

into existence as a mind, free-will, and conscience, 
was a person." 

Here the first three propositions are correct, 
also the fourth, in the sense that the sum of all 
the influences which combine to produce a re- 
sult shall be adequate to produce it. But it 
does not follow that a cause shall necessarily 
always possess exactly the same individuality as 
the effect. The tree, as we have seen, is ade- 
quate to produce the leaf, but it does not follow 
that the tree itself must be a leaf. Books are 
written by men ; but it does not follow that a 
man is a book. A great many effects are pro- 
duced by combinations of circumstances which 
are indeed adequate to produce them, and yet, 
as individualities, the effects are totally different 
from their causes. Mr. Cook's apparent idea of 
involution and evolution would make it neces- 
sary that every individual effect should have 
only an individual cause exactly similar in char- 
acter, thus denying* the potency of combined in- 
fluences. It is this fallacious view of the princi- 



1 72 THE BRAIN A ND THE BIBLE. 

pies of cause and effect which enables Mr. Cook 
to declare in the fifth proposition, that only 
mind, free-will, and conscience in a God, could 
produce mind, free-will, and conscience in man. 
Now, I ask again, what observation has Mr. 
Cook made of the force or forces which produced 
man, that he should make this assertion ? If 
he does not know exactly who or what is the 
cause of the human mind, why should he assume 
that it could have been produced only by an an- 
tecedent mind external to the universe ? Does 
he know the history of man ? Or does he know 
the extent of the forces in nature ? And yet 
Mr. Cook says : "If you will look at that list 
of propositions, you will find nothing taken for 
granted in them except that every change must 
have an adequate cause." 

I appeal to the reader. Do not those propo- 
sitions contain the assumption that only mind, 
free-will, and conscience in the cause of man, are 
sufficient to account for these qualities in man ? 
And is not this something more than simply 



JOSEPH COOK'S ''SCIENTIFIC THEISM" 173 

that "every change should have an adequate 
cause " ? No one denies that man originated 
from an adequate cause ; but this is not the only 
proposition "taken for granted" here by Mr. 
Cook. With his usual subtlety, he simply as- 
sumes that which he professes to demonstrate. 

It matters not what form of argument is 
employed, it must forever be impossible to prove 
that nature is contingent, until it is first demon- 
strated that there exists a power superior to 
nature. 



174 THE BRAIN AND THE BIBLE. 



CHAPTER VIII. 

THE COEEELATION AEGUMENT. 

THE earlier theologians, especially those 
who held the doctrine of total depravity, 
were inclined to disbelieve that man possessed 
any instinctive reverence, or willingness to sub- 
mit to a divine law, and they usually accounted 
for all religious manifestations by what they 
supposed to be the influence of the " Holy 
Spirit." But in our day the professed " scien- 
tific " defenders of orthodoxy come forward with 
the confident assertion that a tendency to wor- 
ship is one of the inherent elements in the con- 
stitution of the mind, implanted there by the 
"Creator." And they argue that as there can 
not be a wing without air to match it, a fin with- 
out water, or an eye without light, so there must 
be a Deity as a necessary correlative to the 
mental faculty of Veneration. Some form of 



THE CORRELATION ARGUMENT. 175 

this argument is probably almost as old as hu- 
man thought; but since the time of Dr. Gall 
it has been brought into greater prominence 
than ever before ; and, in this country, within 
the past few years, Joseph Cook has been pre- 
senting it upon such a gorgeous background of 
rhetoric that among the orthodox it has popu- 
larly come to be regarded as transcendently in- 
vulnerable. However, Mr. Cook and his school 
do not usually refer to any special system of 
mental science as a basis for their reasoning, 
and, unlike certain religio-phrenological authors, 
they seldom directly speak of the faculty of 
Teneration as such. Yet they frequently men- 
tion facts for which they are indebted to Gall 
when it suits their convenience to do so. At 
other times they are careful not to indorse, as 
Mr. Cook says, "a pseudo phrenology"; but, 
unfortunately for the "scientific theists," their 
strongest tower for the defense of their hy- 
pothesis can be clearly shown to be built upon 



THE BRATN AND THE BIBLE. 



the most pseudo Phrenology imaginable. The 
argument may be formulated as follows: 

1. Every natural faculty or instinct has a 
correlate. 

2. The existence of a faculty or instinct 
proves the conjoint existence of all the objects to 
which it is adapted. 

3. There is in the mind a faculty of Ven- 
eration which is adapted to a God. 

4. Therefore, as a correlate to this faculty 
there must be a God. 

The first proposition here is entirely correct. 
There is indeed an object of some kind, ex- 
isting either outside of the mind, or simply as 
an intellectual conception, to match every inher- 
ent faculty or instinct. But in the second 
proposition, we have the usual "petitio principii" 
begging the question, or assumption of that 
which would be admitted only after establishing 
the conclusion of the syllogism. This argument 
is intended to prove the existence of a Deity, 
but it would be necessary first to demonstrate 



THE CORRELATION ARGUMENT. 177 

his existence by some other means, before it 
could be laid clown as a premise that the exist- 
ence of Veneration proves the conjoint existence 
of all the objects to which it is adapted. 
Hence, as an argument it proves nothing. 

The normal function of Veneration, as has 
already been explained, is simply to inspire the 
feeling of reverence, humility, and submissive- 
ness in general. It makes a child respectful 
and polite to parents and all aged persons, or 
recognized superiors of any age or sex, and is 
thus a very necessary element in a harmonious 
organization. Where it is very deficient the 
individual will manifest only a feeble disposition 
to respect authority, and, if otherwise unfavor- 
ably endowed, will be likely to evince an unduly 
rebellious spirit. But, I repeat, this instinct has 
no necessary connection with any single object, 
and the idea that it bears a special relation to 
any particular god may be conclusively dis- 
proved by the fact that in many nations we see 
it exercised in the worship of imaginary deities 



178 THE BRAIN AND THE BIBLE. 

the conceptions of which are regarded by the 
rest of the world with utter indifference, if not 
ridicule and contempt. Again, we observe that 
as fast as nations develop and become civilized, 
their gods are also subjected to various changes 
both as to character and number. But all 
deities, of whatsoever rank or quality, are re- 
vered by the same mental faculty, the activity 
of the same superior cerebral convolutions, from 
the rudest fetich, up to the "meek and lowly 
Jesus." And then there are savage tribes en- 
tirely destitute of any supernatural religion, or 
even fetichism, who, in common with the brutes, 
simply recognize the existence of natural be- 
ings or forces more powerful than themselves, 
and who know no higher god than their Chief. 
To him they submit with a devotion like that 
of a dog for his master, and yet the feeling of 
reverence they have for their Chief is a process 
of the same part of the brain through which is 
manifested the awe of the Jew for Jehovah, or 
the veneration of the Christian for Christ. In 



THE CORRELATION ARGUMENT 179 

the case of these savages, as with the brutes, 
the manifestation of Veneration is induced by a 
very limited and feeble reflection, or act of 
reason, and the objects to which it is directed 
are only such as are perceived by the senses. 
The supernatural religionist, however, takes a 
step beyond the brute and the lowest savage, in- 
asmuch as he extends the objects of his Vener- 
ation into the domain of the metaphysical, 
where, in educing the conception of an anthro- 
pomorphic God as an object, he clearly makes 
a mistake. The Materialist, or Humanitarian 
(who also possesses Veneration, and often in a 
great degree), advances a step still farther, and 
by a complete process of logical reasoning, dis- 
covers that all conceptional Deities are only re- 
flections of human attributes, and thus demon- 
strates that the true objects of our highest love 
and devotion are not imaginary Gods, but the 
living and unborn of our fellow men. 

The oft repeated insinuation that Infidels 
are shallow reasoners, and always devoid of rev- 



180 THE BRAIN AND THE BIBLE. 

erence, is too obviously false to warrant any- 
special discussion here. It is true that Voltaire 
had large Veneration, and believed in a God ; 
but his theism was not the necessary result of 
this faculty. It was owing more to the limited 
opportunities presented in his day for studying 
the principles of nature. In Voltaire's time, the 
"design argument" was scarcely ever questioned, 
and it was almost as much as one could do to 
shake off the grosser forms of superstition. 
However, it is not to be denied that the ac- 
tivity of Veneration often predisposes the indi- 
vidual to believe in a Deity, but this is easily 
explained by the circumstance that the faculty 
is intensely gratified by the worship of an im- 
aginary person able to create and control the 
universe. Belief in such an extraordinary being 
necessarily tends to excite the faculty to an un- 
natural degree, and in the case of religious fa- 
natics, it often produces serious injuries to the 
health of both mind and body. But because a 
certain object is capable of affording the mind 



THE COR RE LA TION ARG UMENT. 181 

intense pleasure, it does not logically follow that 
that object is legitimate or healthful. And the 
idea that any of the sentiments or propensities 
should be able to distinguish or appreciate par- 
ticular objects independently of the intellect, is 
as irrational as to suppose we could perceive the 
rings of Saturn or the stars in the nebula of 
Orion without a telescope. There is no mental 
faculty that is not capable of being exercised 
with reference to a great number of objects. 
Thus Individuality observes an infinite variety 
of individual things; Eventuality remembers 
numberless peculiar and disconnected events. 
Benevolence is not satisfied with a single good 
deed; the mother's Philoprogenitiveness, inde- 
pendently of her intellect, knows no distinction 
between her own children and those of another; 
Cautiousness sees no danger, although it may 
prompt the intellect to seek it out; Hope 
brightens every uncertainty of the future ; Won- 
der is gratified by every mystery, while Vener- 



182 THE BRAIN AND THE BIBLE. 

ation bows to the aged, to the noble, and to 
kings and emperors, as well as to gods. 

To illustrate the weakness of the correlation 
argument, let us imagine the following syllogism : 

1. Every mental faculty has an object to 
match it. 

2. The existence of a faculty proves the con- 
joint existence of all the objects to which it is 
adapted. 

3. The faculty of Acquisitiveness is adapted 
to triangular, rectangular, and octagonal, as w T ell 
as round silver dollars. 

4. Therefore, there are angular as well as 
round silver dollars. 

Thus, if the method of these modern Theists 
is as "scientific" as they represent it to be, we 
may demonstrate the existence of all imaginable 
sorts of coins concealed in the National Treasury. 
Now, of course, if our Government should issue 
coins of various shapes, the popular Acquisitive- 
ness would be gratified by the possession of 
them, and would be adapted or related to them ; 



THE CORBEL A TION ARG UMEN T. 183 

but as we have no other evidence that any coins 
of an angular shape are made, we do not infer 
their present existence from the simple fact that 
we possess a mental faculty which would be 
adapted to them if they were made. For the 
same reason, we can not logically infer the pres- 
ent existence of a God merely from the fact that 
we possess a faculty of Veneration which would 
be adapted to the worship of such a being if he 
did exist. 

Veneration has sufficient legitimate objects 
within the realm of the natural; but let us ad- 
mit, for the sake of argument, that its in- 
stinctive tendency is exclusively to worship a 
God. If this could by any possibility be shown 
to be true, what would it signify? Or suppose 
there were a subjective cognition in any form, 
relating to a God, would it logically follow that 
such an instinct must have been implanted in 
the mind by a personal Creator? Before this 
could be established would it not first be neces- 
sary to prove that man is really the work of a 



184 THE BRAIN AND THE BIBLE. 

Deity ? If it can be shown that the universe 
has been created, then the conclusion is indeed 
irresistible that all the inherent activities of the 
human mind proceed from a God. But as the 
evidences are overwhelming that man is a pro- 
duct of nature, whose brain is simply a register 
of experiences reaching back through unimagin- 
able aeons, the possession of an instinctive de- 
sire to worship presupposes only the various 
natural influences (whatever they may have been,) 
which have combined to produce it. 

The impulse to worship a God, so far as 
any really existing faculty of the mind may be 
thus designated, as well as the belief in a God, 
has undoubtedly been acquired, and is a legacy 
from our probable ancestors of a million years 
ago. And although it is instinctive to-day, and 
antecedent to individual experience, it must 
nevertheless be the result of the experiences of 
our early progenitors, the effects of which, op- 
crating through inconceivable periods of time, 
have become stamped upon the cerebral cortex 



THE CORRELATION ARGUMENT. 185 

as intuitions. "In the course of ages," says B. 
F. Underwood, "states of mind produced by the 
outward world have become organized in the 
race in the form of tendencies. A father who 
has acquired the habit of drunkenness may 
transmit to his offspring the result of his ex- 
perience in the form of an appetite for stimu- 
lants. There are islands having species of 
animals and birds possessing an instinctive fear 
of man, but which exhibited no fear of him 
when he first visited those islands. Man by his 
destructive agency has produced in these ani- 
mals sensations which by repetition, and by the 
transmission of the results on the brain and 
nervous system through successive generations, 
have become condensed and fixed in the species 
as an instinct which, whenever man — who first 
produced the impression — appears, manifests it- 
self in a very positive manner. So the shep- 
herd dog and sporting dogs have characteristics 
which, although originally acquired, are now in- 
nate or instinctive. Thus that which is learned, 



18G THE BRAIN AND THE BIBLE. 

whether from a personal teacher or by contact 
with nature, and is repeated through centuries, 
may produce states of mind which by heredity 
appear in the descendants in the form of apti- 
tudes or predispositions." 

Considered from any point of view, an in- 
herent element of the mind presupposes only the 
causes which have combined to produce man. 
As it exists to-day, the faculty of Veneration, 
when acting within a normal sphere, is one of 
the noblest attributes of human nature, but it 
was doubtless born of ages of oppression and 
pain, during which the emotions of gratitude 
and admiration were almost constantly mingled 
with fear and dread of the unseen beings who 
were supposed to control human destiny. More- 
over, human governments, as far back as we can 
trace them, have nearly always been monarchical, 
and in many instances the rulers were cruel 
despots, and the subjects slaves. If we could 
look back to the period when men first became 
gregarious, the history of human slavery alone 



THE C ORRELA TION ARG UMENT. 1 87 

would almost be sufficient to account for a fac- 
ulty of Veneration. How few nations there have 
been even within modern times, who have not 
bowed with admiration and reverence before the 
sj)lendors of an imperial throne, or crouched and 
cringed in fear at the feet of a haughty king ! 

That the psychological basis of man's relig- 
ious nature is an evolution from a condition like 
that of the lower animals, can no longer be rea- 
sonably doubted ; nor is it less easy of demon- 
stration that wild men exist to-day who have 
scarcely passed the boundary line between brute 
and man. And yet it is a popular belief, and 
one taught in nearly all orthodox pulpits, that 
there are no nations or tribes of men so low 
that they have not some idea of a Deity. But 
we have abundant testimony from such unim- 
peachable authorities as Darwin, Buchner, Lub- 
bock, the Missionary Moffat, and a host of others, 
that there have been and still exist many such 
tribes. For example, the Bechuanas, the Ara- 
furas, the Kafirs, etc. [See pp. 264-268, Biich- 



188 THE BRAIN AND THE BIBLE. 

ner's "Kraft und Staff" Leipsic, 1876. Also the 
article Bechuanas, in the Ency. Brit.] There can 
not be any ground for doubt on this point. 
These savages have evidently never even tried 
to discover any explanation of nature's mysteries. 
It is said that some of them are so incapable of 
appreciating novelty, that the sight of a strange 
ship produces in their minds no other visible ef- 
fect than to elicit a momentary glance, after 
which they trudge along as indifferently as 
though they had seen merely a passing cloud. 
Is it strange that such beings should never have 
made an effort to account for their origin ? 
Would it not be remarkable if they had ? Like 
the uncertain steps of a little child learning to 
walk, the first attempts of primitive man to ex- 
plain the phenomena by which he was sur- 
rounded, were feeble and crude, and it was but 
natural that his first thought should have been 
to invest the forces of nature with his own quali- 
ties, and give them personality. Thus, the first 
idea of a God was originated by a superficial 



THE COR REL ATI ON AUG UMENT. 1 89 

operation of an embryonic Causality, and not 
from any instinctive sentiment. Then, after the 
dawn of this intellectual conception, we can 
easily understand how it affected the emotional 
nature. As the objects of our faculties are per- 
ceived only by the intellect, a simple belief in 
an object would have the same effect in develop- 
ing a sentiment whether the object really existed 
or not. If there were really a God, his attri- 
butes would be apprehended only by the intellect, 
and hence if the attributes now supposed to be- 
long to a God are only the qualities of human 
nature thrown out upon the objective world and 
contemplated as an illusion, the effect is the 
same upon the feelings as though these attri- 
butes really had an objective existence in a per- 
sonal divinity; just as we may be moved to 
tears at a play when we know that the sorrows 
of the actors are only feigned. 

With these facts before us it is certainly 
impossible to infer the existence of a Deity from 
the operation of any mental faculty. "But," 



190 THE BRAIN AND THE BIBLE. 

objects the supernaturalist, "it is surely unrea- 
sonable to believe that we have been brought into 
existence endowed with instincts which mock 
us, and with hopes which can lead only to the 
most cruel disappointments." To this it may 
be replied that our lives here are full of disap- 
pointments. Nature is far from perfect. Pain 
and destruction are interwoven with the very 
constitution of terrestrial life, and it is im- 
possible to reconcile any instance of human 
misery with infinite goodness and benevolence. 
" Eternal justice is a mockery, and compensa- 
tion is a myth." Our utmost ingenuity can 
suggest no optimistic hypothesis which will con- 
ceal the fact of immorality in the government 
of this world. And if it is admitted that evil 
does exist at all, what logical reason have we to 
infer that on this very account some supreme 
being will compensate us after death? So far 
from there being any likelihood that a merciful 
God has instituted evil with a design of ulti- 
mate benevolence, the fact that so much sin and 



THE CORRELA TION ARGUMEXT. 191 

sorrow do exist renders it extremely unlikely 
that there is a benevolent God. But in any 
event, we may say with Prof. Fiske : "If there 
exist a personal creator of the universe who is 
infinitely intelligent and powerful, he can not be 
infinitely good ; and if, on the other hand, he 
be infinite in goodness, then he must be lament- 
ably finite in power or in intelligence." 

Thus, to assert that God is infinitely be- 
nevolent, is equivalent to saying either that evil 
does not exist at all, or that God is not infinite 
in power. But as evil does exist, we must ad- 
mit that there is no God, or else that he is 
finite either in goodness or power. We can 
choose here from three views. First, if we ad- 
mit that there is no God, of course we need not 
hope for exemption from suffering. Second, if 
we accept the belief that there is a God who is 
finite in goodness, we can not with confidence 
rely upon him to compensate us for our mis- 
fortunes. Or, lastly, if we believe in an in- 
finitely good although finitely powerful God, we 



192 THE BRAIN AND THE BIBLE. 

can not consistently expect him to save us from 
disappointments. Now, whatever may be the 
real moral government of the world, it is evi- 
dent that we are subject to some pain and dis- 
appointment. And if we are permitted to suffer 
any disappointment, how shall we logically say 
that we may not be disappointed as to the ex- 
istence of a Deity? 

It is objected that many Phrenologists ad- 
vocate the " correlation argument," and that the 
teachings of " True Phrenology " are certainly 
favorable to it. I think that in the frequent 
definitions I have given of the faculties of Hope, 
Wonder, and Veneration, in this work, I have 
clearly shown that the teachings of Scientific 
Phrenology not only do not support any theist- 
ical vagaries, but, on the contrary, illustrate their 
groundlessness. As to the Phrenologists, it is 
true that some of them have not only inferred 
the existence of a God from the existence of the 
faculty of Veneration, but have also constructed 
some very plausible arguments in defense of this 



THE CO It R EL A TION AUG TJMENT. 193 

belief. But it should be remembered that the 
phrenological fathers, especially Gall, Spurzheim, 
and Combe, formed their ideas while modern 
Scientific Materialism was still in its infancy; 
besides, as I have already said of Voltaire, with 
limited opportunities and encouragements, they 
could not well be expected to divest their minds 
of every vestige of superstition. However, they 
never advanced those inferences with the assur- 
ance manifested by more modern writers. In 
concluding some remarks on this subject, in his 
"System of Phrenology," Combe was logical 
enough to make the following statement: "As, 
however, Veneration has likewise objects on 
earth, this argument can not be regarded as con- 
clusive." Again, in his "Lectures," he says: 
"This argument has, of course, only the force 
of an analogy." 

However, in this discussion it matters but 
little whether any phrenological authors accept 
the correlation argument or not. The only ques- 
tion for us to decide is, is it true? If it can 



194 THE BRAIN AND THE BIBLE. 

be proven to be untenable, the mere assertion of 
any one to the contrary will not in the least 
change the fact. It should not be expected that 
all Phrenologists will exactly agree in their 
methods of interpreting details when we consider 
that this science is, as yet, comparatively new. 
It is only after any science is completed, and 
becomes firmly established, that we can reason- 
ably expect its teachers to display perfect unanim- 
ity in their views. Moreover, there is scarcely 
any philosophical system which does not afford 
some opportunities for men to gratify their preju- 
dices and selfish interests, either in a peculiar 
interpretation of its principles or in the appli- 
cation of them to the affairs of life. But here 
allow me to say, that as to the facts of Phre- 
nology, its teachers have always substantially 
agreed, and it has been only in regard to cer- 
tain inferences from those facts that they have 
differed. Thus, all Phrenologists admit that the 
faculty of Veneration in the minds of Christians 
is gratified by the worship of a supposed God. 



THE COR BEL A TION ARG UMENT. 1 95 

But any inference from this fact as to the exist- 
ence of a God, is, on the part of a Phrenologist, 
purely an act of his own mind, and entirely in- 
dependent of Phrenology per se. Hence, Phre- 
nology can not justly be held responsible for any 
such inferences until it is first proven that they 
are logical and inevitable deductions from its 
true principles. 

It has been objected also, that if Phrenolo- 
gists do not agree among themselves, they 
should not demand unanimity of belief among 
theologians. To this we answer that the cases 
are by no means analogous. Science is sys- 
tematized knowledge, and it should not be ex- 
pected that men shall agree upon a science any 
farther than the extent of their knowledge. 
Besides, it is not a principle with scientists that 
an erroneous opinion, if sincere, involves moral 
obliquity or guilt. But the religion of the 
Bible, so far as it differs from the beautiful 
Humanitarianism taught by the Infidel philoso- 
phers of every age, is chiefly a matter of belief, 



196 THE BRAIN AND THE BIBLE. 

or faith, and since theologians declare that un- 
belief is a crime, and that "Infidels have no 
rights which the Church is bound to respect," 
we hold that they should at least decide which 
is the true Bible, and which is the true Church. 
They surely ought to be able to agree among 
themselves as to whether the Catholic Church 
is the "Spouse of Christ," or the "Harlot of 
Rome." 

Christians pretend that the duties of their 
religion are so plain that " a way-faring man, 
though a fool, need not err therein." If this is 
to be believed, the inquiry suggests itself, in 
what condition is the mental organization of 
Roman Catholic and Protestant theologians? 
Now, scientists, we repeat, do not teach that 
any honest opinion or belief can involve crim- 
inality, since belief does not depend upon voli- 
tion. Right beliefs and opinions are truly 
desirable, because they promote happiness ; while 
false opinions are proportionately undesirable, be- 
cause they are harmful. But, since both true 



THE CORRELATION ARGUMENT. 197 

and false ideas may be entertained conscien- 
tiously, it can not justly be asserted that they 
involve, when sincere, either morality or im- 
morality. This being true, it follows that there 
is no imperative reason why scientists should 
exactly agree in the amount of their knowledge. 
But it is certainly unreasonable for theologians 
dogmatically to insist upon the performance of 
certain acts of faith, under penalty of endless 
torment, when they can not decide among them- 
selves as to what constitutes these necessary 
duties. .They ought to demonstrate the credi- 
bility of their doctrines, or at least the possi- 
bility of discovering the essentials of their 
creeds by agreeing among themselves, before 
they demand that we shall agree with them. 
In order to disguise this palpable inconsistency, 
Protestants are accustomed to refer to the 
harmony of belief among the "Evangelical 
Churches," while the Papists exultingly point to 
the unity in the " Church of Rome." But 
where is the harmony between Romanism and 



198 THE BRAIN AND THE BIBLE. 

Protestantism? It can not be denied that they 
are as incompatible as light and darkness. 

In view of all these conflicts of opinion, 
there is obviously but one proper course to pur- 
sue; namely, let every individual freely express 
his sincere convictions, and then by comparing 
the thought of the world, it may be possible to 
educe the truth. 



THE LOGIC OF JESUITISM. 199 



CHAPTER IX. 

THE LOGIC OF JESUITISM. 

THIS chapter will be devoted to a brief ex- 
amination of the peculiar evidences upon 
which we are expected to embrace the dogmas 
of Roman Catholicism. I quote from a recent 
work which is used as a text-book in Catholic 
institutions, published under the imprimatur of 
Cardinal McCloskey, entitled "Evidences of Re- 
ligion," by Louis Jouin, Priest of the Society of 
Jesus. On page 205 is the following: 

"But it should be observed that, although 
in the present controversy we use the writings 
of the New Testament, we are not, as yet, con- 
sidering them as divinely inspired, but only as 
the faithful records of the teachings and actions 
of the apostles. The inspiration of the writings 
of the New Testament can not be proved by his- 
torical criticism; it rests solely on the authority 



200 THE BRAIN AND THE BIBLE. 

of the true Church. This remark suffices to set 
aside one of the chief arguments employed by 
Protestants against us, viz., that we fall into the 
sophism called by logicians the vicious circle. 
For, say they, you prove the Church from Scrip- 
ture, and then Scripture from the Church. By 
no means. We prove the existence of the 
Church and her attributes from the New Testa- 
ment, considered as a faithful historical record 
of what Christ and His apostles taught; then, 
having thus established the authority of the 
Church as a divinely appointed teacher, we learn 
from her that the Scriptures are inspired. 
Surely no flaw can be found in this line of ar- 
gument." 

To the careful reader, a very serious flaw 
can be found here. So far from giving a satis- 
factory explanation of the difficulty in question, 
Mr. Jouin simply disguises it by expanding the 
circle in which he reasons, thus rendering his 
claims more plausible, though none the less fal- 
lacious. To make the real significance of his 



THE LOGIC OF JESUITISM. 201 

propositions appear more distinctly, let us slightly 
abbreviate them. Instead of " We proye the ex- 
istence of the Church and her attributes from 
the New Testiment considered as a faithful his- 
torical record, etc.," let us substitute the follow- 
ing : 

The JVeiv Testament, considered simply as an 
authentic history, proves that the Church is a di- 
vinely appointed teacher. Then the teaching of the 
Church proves that this history is also divine. 

I do not think any one can say that this 
construction expresses any thing not contained 
in the quotation above, and I believe every 
reader will see at a glance that Mr. Jouin means 
to say the divine attribute of the Church as an 
appointed teacher, may be proved from the New 
Testament without considering the latter in- 
spired. That is, he assumes merely from a his- 
torical point of view, that the writings of the 
New Testament are authentic and sufficiently au- 
thoritative to establish the divine attribute of the 
Church. This is one side of the circle. 



202 THE BRAIN AND THE BIBLE. 

And now the question arises, How is it 
possible to establish a divine or inspired Church 
by any evidence contained in an uninspired 
book? Is it true that the infallible authority 
of God could be conferred upon the Church sim- 
ply by ordinary historians ? In other words, 
could the voluntary statements of ordinary men 
regarding so important a matter be accepted as 
infallible or authoritative? Surely there could 
not be a more untenable position. Moreover, it 
would be absurd to say that any Catholic theo- 
logian ever does attempt to prove the divinity 
of the Church from the New Testament writings 
unless he first believes that they are inspired. 
But supposing that a sincere Romanist could by 
any possibility divest his mind of the belief in 
biblical inspiration, could he prove from the 
New Testament, considered simply as a profane 
history, that Jesus Christ possessed any author- 
ity from God to establish a Church? Unless it 
is first conceded that the Gospel narratives are 
divinely inspired, how would it be possible to 



THE LOGIC OF JESUITISM. 203 

demonstrate the truth of the alleged super- 
natural character of Christ? If he was not 
God, of course it would be only an assumption 
to say that he had any authority to found a 
Church; hence, the very first and most impor- 
tant point to be decided is that of his divinity. 
If the "Immaculate Conception" ever occurred, 
we must believe the most wonderful miracle 
ever recorded. But as this story is so prepos- 
terous, does it not need to be supported by the 
most unimpeachable testimony ; nay, the most 
positive demonstration? Would the sworn testi- 
mony of a thousand persons be taken as proof 
of such a thing in the present day ? Could any 
testimony short of an assertion by a divinely 
inspired writer, be accepted as unmistakable 
evidence of any thing so at variance with all 
experience and observation? Assuredly not. 
Even Mr. Jouin, on page 315 of the book in 
question, makes the following significant admis- 
sion in regard to the Bible: " There are con- 
tained in it many mysteries surpassing the 



204 THE BRAIN AND THE BIBLE. 

limits of the human intellect, which can be 
credible only when it is known that God really 
inspired the sacred penman who stated them." 
Now, if any thing in the Bible surpasses the 
human intellect, and can be credible only when 
known to be stated by an inspired writer, is 
not this very story of Christ's miraculous birth 
a case in point? 

With reference to the means of distinguish- 
ing the true Church, on page 204, Mr. Jouin 
says, " we have to consult the records left us by 
the apostles and disciples of our Lord, if we 
want to establish its identity; forasmuch as its 
foundation is an historical fact, it can be proved 
by historical monuments alone." 

Now, is not this a virtual admission that the 
New Testament contains the only " historical 
monuments " which really establish the authority 
of the Church ? There is surely no so-called pro- 
fane history sufficiently reliable to verify the 
Christian traditions. It can not be shown that 
any contemporaneous profane writer ever testified 



THE LOGIC OF JESUITISM. 205 

to the supernatural character of Christ. The oft 
quoted passage in some copies of Josephus, is, by 
the most eminent theologians, decided to be a 
forgery. The most ancient manuscripts do not 
contain it, and it was evidently interpolated by 
some of the early Fathers, who, by their own 
confession, were so thoroughly imbued with the 
spirit of Jesuitism that they regarded it as no 
sin to practice any deception which would aid in 
spreading their faith. However, suppose Jo- 
sephus had made any mention of Christ's mira- 
cles, would it prove that they really occurred? 
The question before us is in regard to demon- 
stration and authority ; not mere tradition. And, 
admitting, for the sake of argument, that Jo- 
sephus, Tacitus, Pliny, or any other non-apostolic 
writers, did refer to Christ, their accounts fur- 
nish no demonstration of his divinity. 

And now, is there any other kind of collat- 
eral evidence sufficient to prove the authority of 
the Church? To prove any miracle whatsoever, 
would require a kind of demonstration as remark- 



206 THE BRAIN AND THE BIBLE. 

able as the miracle itself. But it is unnecessary 
to dwell upon this point. The Romanists do 
not pretend to rely upon evidence outside of the 
Bible. On the contrary, they distinctly assert 
that they "prove the existence of the Church 
and her attributes from the New Testament, 
considered as a faithful historical record." And 
yet they declare that this record can not be es- 
tablished either as genuine or authentic, except by 
the dogmatic voice of the Church. Mr. Jouin, 
page 311, says "that "the authenticity of a book 
must be shown by the uniform testimony of all 
the generations up to the very time when this 
book was written. Now, this testimony is given 
by the Church alone, as regards the New Testa- 
ment; for, though some pagan authors mention 
some of the Gospels, and allude to some parts 
of the other sacred writings, they never testify 
to the genuineness and authenticity of the same 
in the form in which we have them now. Even 
early Catholic writers do not agree in these 
statements : more than one of the books actually 



THE LOGIC OF JESUITISM. 207 

contained both in Catholic and Protestant Bibles 
were by some considered doubtful. It was the 
Catholic Church alone that determined the canon 
of Holy Writ ; on her authority were the apocry- 
phal Gospels, and other writings attributed to 
the apostles, separated from those which are 
genuine." 

We have now reached the other side of 
the circle. It will be remembered that Mr. 
Jouin first assumed the " faithfulness " (another 
word for authenticity,) of the New Testament 
records, in order to prove the authority of the 
Church, and here is his admission that the 
"faithfulness," or genuineness and authenticity, 
that is, historical value (to say nothing of the 
inspiration,) of the New Testament, depends 
solely upon the decision of the Church. It is a 
notorious fact that the canonical books were 
selected from numerous conflicting writings 
which were current within the first three cen- 
turies, and since it is admitted that the testi- 
mony necessary to prove their authenticity "is 



208 THE BRAIN AND THE BIBLE. 

given by the Church alone," and that "It was 
the Catholic Church alone that determined the 
canon of Holy Writ, etc.," how can those writ- 
ings be "considered" as a "faithful historical 
record," except on the sole authority of the 
Church? Wo theologian denies that the books 
of the New Testament were attested, if not 
selected, by an ecclesiastical vote. Thus the 
Romanists establish the inspiration or "divine" 
authority of this "record" by the voice of the 
Church, and then prove the inspiration or "di- 
vine" authority of the Church from this "rec- 
ord." 

However, to explain this obvious inconsis- 
tency, they assert that reliable evidence may be 
adduced from non-ecclesiastical sources for the 
truth of certain portions of the New Testament 
canon which establish the divinity of the Church. 
But this is only a feeble makeshift, for there is 
in reality no such external evidence whatever 
that can be regarded as conclusive. Indeed all 
of the testimony given not only by the Pagan 



THE LOGIC OF JESUITISM. 209 

writers, but also by the early Fathers, is of 
such questionable character that many of the 
most learned Protestant theologians reject it, 
taking the ground that the Gospels must rest 
entirely upon their intrinsic merits. Besides, as 
I have already shown, according to the admis- 
sion of the Romish Church, no historical criti- 
cism could be applied to any of the Gospel 
statements without regarding them as uninspired, 
which would reduce them to the character of 
profane history, and thus strip them of the 
only quality which could ever constitute them 
unimpeachable and authoritative title-deeds of 
the Church. 

It will not suffice to say that because the 
canonical writings were generally regarded as 
authentic in the second century, and publicly 
read in the churches, they must be true; for it 
is admitted on all sides that as late as the be- 
ginning of the third century a great number of 
spurious gospels also were in circulation, and 
held by many to share equal authority with the 



210 THE BRATN AND THE BIBLE. 

books of the canon. And, although it can not 
be proved by historical criticism that the canoni- 
cal books were written by the men whose names 
they bear, or that their accuracy was not dis- 
puted in the first and second centuries, we may 
grant, for the sake of argument, that the genu- 
ineness and authenticity of those writings were 
never called into question. But would such a 
fact alone render them authoritative ? If a mere 
belief in a marvelous story is sufficient to give 
it authority, how can we logically reject any of 
the superstitions of the world ? But what was 
the character of the times when the canonical 
Gospels were first accepted ? Let me answer by 
quoting from the well-known Christian historian 
Mosheim : " For not long after Christ's ascen- 
sion into heaven, several histories of his life and 
doctrines, full of pious frauds and fabulous won- 
ders, were composed by persons whose intentions, 
perhaps, were not bad, but whose writings dis- 
covered the greatest superstition and ignorance. 
~Nov was this all. Productions appeared which 



THE LOGIC OF JESUITISM. 211 

were imposed upon the world by fraudulent men 
as the writings of the holy apostles." And in- 
stead of growing better with the farther spread 
of Christianity, the cloud of moral and intellect- 
ual gloom only settled deeper. Of the fourth 
century, Mosheim says : " The interest of virtue 
and true religion suffered yet more grievously by 
the monstrous errors that were almost univers- 
ally adopted in this century, and became a 
source of immeasurable calamities and mischiefs 
in the succeeding ages. The first of these max- 
ims was that it was an act of virtue to deceive 
and lie when by that means the interest of the 
Church might be promoted. The second equally 
horrible wrong was the production of an incredi- 
ble number of ridiculous fables, fictitious prodi- 
gies, and pious frauds, to the unspeakable detri- 
ment of that glorious cause in which they were 
employed. And it may be frankly confessed that 
the greatest men and most eminent saints of this 
century were more or less tainted with the in- 
fection of the corrupt principle." 



212 THE BRAIN AND THE BIBLE. 

Scores of Christian authorities might be cited 
to show that in the early history of this religion 
it was common to forge whole books and palm 
them off as authentic. In the article "Bible," in 
the ninth edition of the Ency. Brit., the Rev. W. 
Robertson Smith says : 

"All the earliest external evidence points to 
the conclusion that the synoptical gospels are 
non-apostolic digests of spoken and written apos- 
tolic tradition, and that the earlier material in 
orderly form took place only gradually in many 
ways. . . . All our knowledge of the period 
that lies between the apostles and the great 
teachers of the old Catholic Church towards the 
close of the second century, is fragmentary. . . . 
The analysis of the New Testament is tho resur- 
rection of early parties in the Church, each pur- 
suing its own tendency by the aid of literary 
fiction." 

What more need be added to this damag- 
ing testimony from honest men who believe in 
the divinity of the Bible themselves ? However, 



THE L GIC OF JES UITISM. 21 3 

we wish to do no injustice to the Romish 
Church, and while we do not accuse its de- 
fenders of professing to prove the Bible wholly 
by the Church, and vice versa, we hold that, ac- 
cording to their admissions, all the real authority 
possessed by either is derived from the other. 
Their exact teaching is that certain portions of 
the canonical writings are supported by sufficient 
historical evidence, aside from their inspiration, 
to establish the divinity and infallibility of the 
Church, and just here is the real fallacy. To 
evolve a " divinely appointed " Church from a 
non-clivine book, would be producing an effect 
without an adequate cause. It would be a dis- 
play in the effect, of an absolute quality which 
it is admitted was not in any sense contained in 
the cause. If there were no divine stamp or 
seal upon the canonical gospels they could not 
bestow a divine stamp or seal upon the Church. 
For example, if we ask for the authority of 
Christ's alleged promise to Peter recorded in 
Matt, xvi., 16-19, the answer can not be that 



214 THE BRAIN AND THE BIBLE. 

the record is divinely inspired, and therefore in- 
fallibly true, but simply that it was believed to 
be true by many of the early Christians, each 
party of which was "pursuing its own tendency 
by the aid of literary fiction." 

Again, the Church boldly assumes that as 
she is in possession of her seat at Rome, and has 
maintained her claim to the custody of the Bi- 
ble for eighteen centuries, it devolves upon In- 
fidels to prove that she was not founded by 
divine authority. But, I repeat (and it can 
scarcely be repeated too often), that in this mat- 
ter it is the duty of the Church to establish her 
affirmative. If the mere fact that the Papacy 
has existed so many centuries is to be taken as 
evidence of her authority, what other false and 
pernicious institution of long standing might not 
be defended on the same ground ? If the 
"Cause of Christ" is to be supported by such 
shameless sophistry as this, it must indeed be 
pitiably weak. 

As is well known, Catholics assert that 



THE LOGIC OF JESUITISM. 215 

Protestants have no means of proving the truth 
of the Bible. Mr. Jouin says : " We require 
the infallible teaching of the Church to know 
that the Bible is the word of God. Had we 
not her infallible testimony we could not know 
that there is a Bible, etc." Again, " If, there- 
fore, the authority of the Church is not trust- 
worthy, there is no means of proving that we 
have at present the genuine word of God. . . 
Were this authority wanting, there would be no 
means of knowing what Christ has revealed, 
and thus his mission on earth would be frus- 
trated." 

The theologians in the Bomish Church are, 
without question, as scholarly as those of any 
other denomination, and if there were any ar- 
guments available to Protestants to prove the 
divinity of the Bible, the Bomanists would cer- 
tainly be acquainted with them. But, on this 
point, they say that Protestants have no better 
arguments to prove the Bible than the Turks 
have to prove the Koran; — an idea with which 



216 THE BRAIN AND THE BIBLE. 

Infidels perfectly agree, for it is certainly true. 
The only essential difference betwen the Koran 
and the Bible, is, that the latter contains more 
good literature than the former. But the fact 
that the Bible is the best book of its kind does 
not by any means establish its divinity. 

In- a former chapter, I endeavored to show 
that between the Liberal Christians and the 
Jewish theologians the authoritv of the entire 
Bible is rejected. And in these remarks upon 
Roman Catholicism, I wish to submit the fact 
that according to the testimony of Christian 
theologians there is no evidence to prove either 
a divine Bible or a divine Church. Romanists 
ridicule the efforts of Protestants to prove the 
authority of the Bible, and the Protestants hold 
in contempt the pretentions to authority made 
by the Church of Rome. Hence, as each refutes 
the other, we may be sure that the claims of 
both are worthless. 



POPULAR OBJECTIONS TO INFIDELITY. 217 



CHAPTER X. 

POPULAR OBJECTIONS TO INFIDELITY. 

IT is frequently asserted that Freethinkers 
manifest quite as much illiberal ity and ag- 
gressiveness as the Christians in whom they so 
strongly condemn these qualities. Nothing, how- 
ever, could be farther from the truth. Is it " il- 
liberal " to struggle for liberty? Is it " aggres- 
sive " to strike in self-defense ? It will be said, 
perhaps, that the Church no longer persecutes. 
True, her faggots have gone to ashes ; her thumb- 
screws have rusted; her racks are worm-eaten, 
and her blood-besmirched hands are now too fee- 
ble to wield the sword. But from pulpit and 
press, by tongue and pen, the venom of her en- 
mity has never ceased to flow. In the past, 
Christians always persecuted in exact proportion 
to their power, and they do the same to-day. 
With the mass of the orthodox people, Infidelity 



218 THE BRAIN AND THE BIBLE. 

is still a synonym for immorality and crime. A 
disbeliever in God and the inspiration of the 
Bible, is regarded a priori, as one who knows no 
law but his own evil heart; one who is devoid 
of both honor and reason; a wretch who would 
pollute the innocence of youth; a creature to be 
shunned as a "moral leper." Christians are 
taught that the fear of God is not only the " be- 
ginning of wisdom," but also the basis of all 
moral principle; and with such a distorted view 
of human nature, how can they logically regard 
the Atheist in any other light than that of an 
enemy to all that is good ? But should we be 
called " illiberal" because we cry out against this 
injustice ? Are we " aggressive " because we de- 
sire to be recognized for the manhood and 
womanhood we possess irrespective of creed ? 
"The liberty of one man ends only where that 
of another begins." But does the Infidel enjoy 
such a liberty ? Do Christians admit that he 
has a ri^ht to his unbelief? How can thev ad- 
mit it when they teach that he thereby not only 



POPULAR OBJECTIONS TO INFIDELITY. 219 

loses his own soul, but by his influence drags 
others with him to perdition? What says the 
Romish Church as to the rights of Infidels? 
In her Papal Encyclicals, and in all her offi- 
cial utterances, she breathes the most deadly ha- 
tred to the principles of religious tolerance, and 
denounces every form of heresy as punishable 
crime. Therefore, we deny that we should be 
called " aggressive," so long as our rights are 
thus trampled under the heel of ignorance and 
superstition. 

Moreover, if we do enjoy a comparative free- 
dom to-day, we think also of the coming gener- 
ations to whom we owe a sacred duty. The splen- 
did liberties of the American nation are still 
threatened by oath-bound zealots of foreign birth 
and bias, who, in the name of Jesus, would but 
too gladly betray our all-protecting flag, and 
above the stars and stripes erect the bloody 
symbol of the cross. Until this danger is avert- 
ed; until Infidels are allowed to testify in all 
courts of justice ; until they are no longer re- 



220 THE BRAIN AND THE BIBLE. 

garded as disqualified for holding positions in 
the Government ; until the money they pay into 
the public treasury is no longer plundered for 
the maintenance of superstition; until they are 
allowed to spend seven-sevenths of their time as 
they choose ; until they are no longer looked 
upon as criminals before God and the Church; 
in a word, until they are recognized for their 
merits simply as men and women, the cry of 
"Illiberal Liberalism" should be repeated no 
more. 

And here let me say that by the term 
Church, we mean only her false and pernicious 
dogmas ; not the generous, trusting people who 
believe them. It is not against men and women 
that we contend, but against the superstition 
they have been taught, and which makes them 
cling to the follies and errors of the world's 
childhood, rather than the glorious certainties 
offered by the science of to-day. As Christians 
define Infidelity, they are themselves the only 
real Infidels, for their creeds lead them away 



POPULAR OBJECTIONS TO INFIDELITY. 221 

from the great truths of Nature, away from a 
knowledge of the only means by which we can 
attain our highest and truest development. 
This is their misfortune more than their fault, 
and it is only their mistakes that we oppose. 

It is also charged against us, that if we had 
the power once possessed by the Church, we 
w T ould persecute Christians, and endeavor to ex- 
tirpate them with fire and sword, exactly as 
they used to deal with our predecessors. This 
may be answered in a single sentence. We do 
not hold that any honest belief, however absurd 
or harmful, can involve guilt ; hence we could 
have no motive for oppressing those who simply 
differed from us in opinion. The Church, on 
the contrary, teaches that unbelief is a sin, and 
thus renders intolerance and persecution inev- 
itable, just to the extent that her dogmas are 
sincerely believed, and logically carried into ef- 
fect. It is therefore clear that the two cases 
are in no sense parallel. 

There should be no difficulty in understand- 



222 THE BRAIN AND THE BIBLE. 

ing our position in this matter. We do not 
quarrel with the Church. The Church quarrels 
with us. If a peaceful citizen is awakened in 
the night by the hand of a burglar at his 
throat, is it "persecution" for him to resist 
such an attack and to expel the intruder? 
Moreover, if, on the following day, he takes 
measures to prevent the recurrence of such an 
outrage, should he be called "intolerant"? To 
what depths of puerile quibbling Superstition 
descends ! 

No ; we are not aggressive. Let the 
Church guarantee us our liberties and our rights, 
and we will no longer oppose her. When she 
is able to do this she will have abandoned her 
unjust dogmas and all the features which make 
her hateful in the eyes of every lover of true 
liberty. 

As to the comparison some seek to draw 
between the Freethinkers of to-day and the Pa- 
gan Romans who persecuted the early Christ- 
ians, it simply illustrates the paucity of mag- 



POPULAR OBJECTIONS TO INFIDELITY. 223 

nanimity and good sense which characterizes 
many of these would-be shepherds of human 
kind. What have modern Infidels to do with 
the superstitions of ancient Rome? Should we 
he expected to advocate all the vices of an- 
tiquity simply because we are not Christians? 
While Pagan Rome was in her highest glory 
the Hottentots were not Christians either. Does 
it therefore follow that Tyndall and Darwin, 
Huxley and Haeckel, and Bradlaugh and Inger- 
sol, are Hottentots ? We have no more sym- 
pathy with the unjust persecutions of Christ- 
ians by the Pagans of old, than we have with 
the cruelties and crimes of medieval or modern 
Christianity. Let those who would know where 
we stand read our books, and study our lives, 
not superficially, but fairly and carefully, and 
they will see that it is we who have been the 
persecuted, and that we only ask for justice. 

Another objection is, that we are so preju- 
diced against the Bible, that we do not examine 
it with sincere motives, and hence remain in ig- 



224 THE BRAIN AND THE BIBLE. 

norance of it. In other words, that we investi- 
gate only one side. Exactly the reverse of this 
is true. In renouncing supernaturalism, we part 
with much that is dear to us, as well as much 
that we instinctively abhor. While we rejoice 
at the emancipation of the human race from the 
infamous horror of eternal punishment, we are 
deeply pained by the conviction that there is 
much wrong in this world which no God can ever 
make right. Our religion of Nature demands 
much greater self-denial than that of the Super- 
natural, and representative Infidels who were 
once in the Church, in the majority of cases, re- 
linquish their belief in God and the inspiration 
of the Bible, with much sadness and reluctance. 
They are driven to Infidelity in the very face of 
their prejudices. On the other hand, Christians 
believe exactly that with which they most strongly 
sympathize, and which they have not the cour- 
age to disbelieve. How unjust, then, under these 
circumstances, to impeach the Freethinker's judg- 
ment! It is the Christian who studies only one 



POPULAR OBJECTIONS TO INFIDELITY. 225 

side. No Infidel was ever known to burn a 
book of " Christian Evidences "; but where are 
the Christian families who admit Infidel litera- 
ture into their homes ? 

As regards the ignorance and narrowness of 
Freethinkers, we have no fears as to the result 
of a comparison between our leading minds and 
any of the defenders of the Bible. But, ad- 
mitting that the best scholars in our ranks are 
usually deficient in Veneration, and are coldly 
intellectual ; this is only an argument in favor of 
their views regarding supernaturalism. The di- 
versity of creeds shows that mere sentiment is 
incapable of discovering truth, and as it is 
clearly the office of reason to guide the feelings, 
we must certainly conclude that those individu- 
als who possess more intellect than sentiment 
are best fitted to perceive the truth without 
prejudice. To obtain the highest results in any 
particular department of mind, we must take a 
specialist in that department. This is a princi- 
ple universally recognized and followed in every- 



226 THE BRAIN AND THE BIBLE. 

day life, as regards commerce, mechanics, art 
literature, music, etc., etc. Thus, within the 
province of mere reverence, and trusting faith, 
for extravagance we give the palm to theolo- 
gians. But as regards that which is, and that 
which may be known — in this vast field scientists 
are the specialists, and the greatest of these 
specialists are Infidels. 

To the charge of blasphemy, profanity, etc., 
I would sav, that as we do not believe in the 
reality of any God, our strictures upon orthodoxy 
can not be said necessarily to spring from any 
inherent vulgarity, or lack of true reverence. 
And as to our accepting remuneration for our 
books and lectures, why should men not be paid 
for sound philosophy as well as for sound wheat 
or corn ? To be sure, we sometimes make mis- 
takes, but then we have never professed to be 
infallible or divinely inspired. 

American Liberals have even been accused 
of wishing to encourage the dissemination of 
obscene literature. The sea has bounds, but the 



POPULAR OBJECTIONS TO INFIDELITY. Til 

slough, from which Superstition draws its mis- 
siles, seems to have none. This most unkind 
thrust has been dealt in consequence simj)ly of 
certain perhaps overzealous, though honest, ef- 
forts to avert the evils and abuses growing out 
of a legislative system which is believed by 
many to be unconstitutional, and likely to pave 
the way for a restriction of the purest literature 
of Infidelity. Our leaders, foreseeing the diffi- 
culties in the way of adjusting any thing so in- 
tricate, have, it is true, advocated somewhat 
different and conflicting schemes with regard to 
this matter, but they have disagreed only as to 
the most legal policy to be pursued for the 
protection of the legitimate literature of Free- 
thought. And the idea that any class of repre- 
sentative Liberals are in favor of promoting 
licentiousness, is simply absurd. Indeed, one 
reason why we oppose the Bible is because it 
contains numerous passages totally unfit to be 
read by any man or woman, much less a child; 
expressions and narratives extremely coarse 



228 THE BRAIN AND THE BIBLE. 

without the merit of teaching any profitable les- 
son. And yet this vulgarity is said to be the 
Holy Word of an omnipresent, omniscient, and 
omnipotent God! 

This leads me to mention the objection that 
Infidels are, as a rule, morally angular, and 
fragmentary, both in their heads and in their 
philosophies. I freely admit that they are to- 
day in some cases fragmentary as to their moral 
endowments, especially, however, as regards the 
illiterate ones ; but I deny that this angularity 
is the result of their Infidelity. Their Infi- 
delity is due rather to their angularity. For 
what is any infidelity, or heresy? Simply un- 
faithfulness, disloyalty, rebellion. All those who 
rebel against any form of government which in 
childhood they were taught to revere, must of 
necessity do so in opposition to the faculty of 
Veneration. Thus it is obvious that the less 
one possesses of the conservative, restraining 
faculties, the more easily he becomes a rebel or 
an infidel to that which his reason condemns. 



POPULAR OBJECTIONS TO INFIDELITY. 229 

On the other hand, the profoundly conscientious 
and reverential man, who sincerely regards un- 
belief as a sin, of course instinctively antago- 
nizes every skeptical thought, and is thus likely 
to remain a slave to the religion learned at his 
mother's knee. 

But let us trace the history of an immoral 
Infidel. For example, here is a young man who 
has been thoroughly instructed in the dogmas 
of Christianity, and in his youthful ignorance he 
believes they are true. But he has very strong 
animal propensities, with very deficient Vener- 
ation, Wonder, Conscientiousness, and Approba- 
tiveness. He soon develops an immoral charac- 
ter, and, while believing it to be a sin, he reck- 
lessly reads an Infidel book, discovers that there 
is no logical ground for belief in supernatural- 
ism, and avows himself a Freethinker. Having 
never learned from his orthodox teachers his ob- 
ligations to humanity, or the punishments Nature 
inflicts for the violation of her laws, with the 
one thought in his mind that there is no God, 



230 THE BRAIN AND THE BIBLE. 

no hereafter, no retribution, he foolishly plunges 
deeper into vice than before. Christians then 
cry, " Behold the fruits of Infidelity ! " But, in 
truth, the chief causes of this individual's wicked- 
ness were determined before he was born, and 
it was his indifference to what he erroneously 
believed to be his duty which enabled him to 
throw off the restraints of orthodoxy. As his 
only incentives to morality were interwoven with 
his ideas of allegiance to a capricious Deity, in 
giving up the belief in the Deity, he naturally 
loosened his moral restraints also. This is in- 
deed the experience of many professed Free- 
thinkers, but the fault lies neither with them 
nor with Freethought. It lies with the Bible, 
whose false and impracticable doctrines lead par- 
ents to disregard the laws of heredity, and to 
look with contempt upon all facts regarding the 
dependence of the moral faculties ujdoii cerebral 
organization. If Infidels are immoral, it is be- 
cause they have immoral brains, and not because 



POPULAR OBJECTIONS TO INFIDELITY. 231 

Infidel philosophy gives them any sanction to 
vice. 

However, it is unfair to judge Liberalism by 
those individuals whose only training has been 
under the influence of theology, and who are 
very ignorant of the principles of Nature which 
they profess to believe. Humanitarianism im- 
poses greater restraints, holds up loftier ideals, 
and leads to a higher development than any 
creed of the Bible. aSo mere negationist can be 
called a representative Liberal, but it is true 
that the pioneers in any great heresy or reform 
are generally more destructive than constructive, 
more aggressive and iconoclastic than reverent 
and conservative. If they were not, they could 
never withstand the opposition which is always 
encountered by those who labor to uproot error 
and dethrone tyranny. Look at the great rebels 
of history. Were they not all angular ? There 
is always more or less temporary looseness in 
morals during the transition from one religious 
system to another, and it is inevitable, from the 



232 THE BRAIN AND THE BIBLE. 

fact that every creed makes itself the basis of 
right conduct. When Christianity was in its 
infancy, Pagan writers complained that its influ- 
ence was evil, because it destroyed the old in- 
centives to virtue ; but after it became estab- 
lished, and the forces in human nature found 
opportunity to assert themselves, the new system 
gathered to itself the majority of the best people 
in the world. 

It can not be said that the leaders of the 
Protestant Reformation taught, a morality less 
pure than that of the Romish Church, and yet 
it is a matter of history, especially as regards 
France, that that great heresy led to much tem- 
porary immorality and vice. And whenever this 
was observed by the Romish clergy, they invari- 
ably cited it as a proof of the essential wicked- 
ness of the Protestant religion. To-day, the 
doctrines of Liberalism are producing effects 
somewhat similar to those of early Protestant- 
ism, and no one should imagine that the moral 
defects of any professed Freethinkers are either 



POPULAR OBJECTIONS TO INFIDELITY. 233 

warranted by the principles of Freethought, or 
necessarily produced by their application. To 
test the pure fruit of Liberalism, it is, I repeat, 
very unfair to pluck from trees grown in ortho- 
dox clay. Our Infidel philosophy has thus far 
been denied opportunity. Let those who oppose 
it at least examine its principles before denounc- 
ing it. 

The foregoing paragraph calls to mind the 
seeming fondness of the average pulpit orator 
for dwelling upon the French Revolution as an 
instance of the terrible effects of unrestricted 
Infidelity. To persons at all acquainted with 
history, or with the principles of human nature, 
it would seem almost a waste of time to reply 
to such caviling; but as the orthodox armory 
contains no other kind of weapons, we may, per- 
haps, be justified in briefly noticing this spurt 
of spleen. Our answer is simply this: The 
French masses, prior to the period in question, 
had been nursed at the bosom of Homish Super- 
stition, and were no more prepared to embrace 



234 THE BRAIN AND THE BIBLE. 

the principles and privileges of Freethought 
than the eyes of a new born babe would be to 
meet the noon-day sun. But show us an in- 
stance where the teachings of Infidel leaders 
have been permitted to take root in virgin soil, 
and have afterwards budded and blossomed in 
the light of scientific Humanitarianism, and we 
will agree to be judged by the results. These 
remarks will also apply to the cases of those In- 
fidels who have recanted upon their death-beds. 
There have, doubtless, been some Freethinkers, 
who, dying in their dotage, were unable to resist 
the impressions formed during their first child- 
hood; but as to the Sunday School stories re- 
garding the last hours of Paine, Voltaire, and 
other really representative Infidels, they have 
been repeatedly shown to be slanders born of 
the envy and impotence of the decaying creeds. 
Another charge is, that Infidelity has never 
contributed any thing for the advancement of 
human happiness. Exactly the opposite of this 
is the fact. Some degree or kind of infidelity 



POPULAR OBJECTIONS TO INFIDELITY. 235 

has contributed all that the world enjoys to-day. 
It is only by a species of heresy or disloyalty 
that any old error can be superseded by that 
which is newer and better. And as to super- 
natural religion, the only true symbol of ortho- 
doxy is the starving and freezing monk in his 
cell. Whenever a man goes out into the world 
and works for humanity he is on the road to 
heresy. The truth is, the so-called Christian 
civilization of the nineteenth century is simply 
the offspring of heterodox influences which the 
dogmas of Christianity have been powerless to 
withstand. " Extinguished theologians," says 
Huxley, "lie about the cradle of every science 
as the strangled snakes beside that of Hercules." 
The spirit of orthodoxy has always been op- 
posed to freedom and progress, and yet when- 
ever a great reform is effected, Christians 
immediately assert that it is due to the Bible. 
For example, look back to the persecutions for 
witchcraft in Europe and our own New Eng- 
land, when hundreds of thousands of innocent 



236 THE BRAIN AND THE BIBLE. 

people were put to death in the most cruel 
manner on the authority of the Bible. Such 
pillars of orthodoxy as John Wesley and 
Richard Baxter were among the foremost to en- 
courage this monstrous wrong, but the first to 
raise their voices against it were Infidels like 
Voltaire and Hobbes, who trusted to reason 
rather than the vagaries of a deluded priest- 
hood. 

Christianity now claims the credit of hav- 
ing also abolished American slavery; and this 
in the face of the fact that the Bible sanc- 
tions slavery and polygamy in the most un- 
equivocal language. In the Southern States, the 
clergy defended slavery on the authority of the 
Bible, and thirty years ago there was scarcely a 
pulpit in the North in which a man could pro- 
test against it. It was only upon the broad 
field of nationalism that men could consistently 
oppose the plain teachings of the Bible in this 
matter, and hence Infidels were among the first 
and most zealous Abolitionists. 



POPULAR OBJECTIONS TO INFIDELITY. 237 

Civilization and morality have their found- 
ation in experience and science. The fact that 
the Christian religion is popular in all of the 
most civilized countries, is no proof that it is the 
cause of their civilization. Alcohol and tobacco 
are also used in greatest abundance by the so- 
called Christian nations, but no one thinks of 
ascribing the enlightenment of the world to those 
articles. Again, what shall be said of the fact that 
these " Christian nations " are the most skepti- 
cal ? All of the greatest leaders in scientific 
thought, the intellectual giants of the world, to- 
day, are Infidels. The only proper way to de- 
cide this question is to take the nations who 
have been influenced by Christianity without sci- 
ence, and compare them with the nations who 
have had both Christianity and science. For ex- 
ample, contrast Italy, Spain, Mexico, and Abys- 
sinia, with Germany, France, England, and 
America. It is absurd to say that the degra- 
dation in Catholic countries has resulted from a 
perversion of true Christianity. The Romanists 



238 THE BRAIN AND THE BIBLE. 

of all lands have had every doctrine instilled 
into them which distinguishes the Christian re- 
ligion from Infidel philosophy; and the only 
points in which they have essentially differed 
from the most advanced nations, have been in 
matters of science and morality which Infidels 
have always been the first to defend. Nor will 
it suffice to attribute the superior enlightenment 
of Protestant countries to the fact that in them 
the masses read the Bible for themselves. Was 
the religion of John Calvin or John Knox less 
hostile to freedom of thought than that of Ro- 
manism? Does history afford a more horrid 
picture of fanaticism, bigotry, and persecution, 
than that of Bible-reading Scotland in the seven- 
teenth century? Whence came the printing- 
press, the sewing machine, the loom, the steam- 
ship, and the telegraph? From theology? Has 
the Bible contributed a single idea of value to 
the sciences of astronomy, geology, mathematics, 
chemistry, physiology, medicine, etc., which, in a 
thousand ways, promote the happiness of man- 



POPULAR OBJECTIONS TO INFIDELITY. 239 

kind? The whole marrow of supernatural relig- 
ion is contempt for this world and all the achieve- 
ments of man, while science is the friend of all 
that is good, beautiful, and true. 

Lastly, it is said that Materialism destroys 
the immortality of the soul, robs man of his 
highest glory, and lowers him to an equality 
w r ith the brutes. To this we can reply that if 
death does terminate our individual existence, 
neither Materialism nor Materialists should be 
blamed for it. If there is a hereafter, it is a 
fact in nature which no form of belief or unbe- 
lief can set aside. And if there is none, a mere 
belief in it would not make it true. " But," 
says the Christian, "you take away our hope in 
a future life, a hope which lightens our sorrows, 
and lifts us above all the grief and gloom of 
this unhappy world." Granting that this is 
true, ought we to suppress an important fact 
simply because some will temporarily suffer in 
consequence? The knife of the surgeon makes 
us shudder, and yet are we not often indebted 



240 THE BRA IN AND THE BIBLE. 

to it for our lives ? If there is no evidence to 
warrant us in expecting a life beyond the grave, 
will it not be best for the millions of our pos- 
terity to know the truth and learn to face it 
bravely ? 

As for me, I want no hoodwink upon my 
head or my heart, and I hold that in order to 
be truly noble men and women in this world, 
we must learn to accept the inevitable with 
courage and philosophic dignity. To do this it 
is not necessary to have less of true manhood 
or womanhood. And here I will say that, in 
my judgment, as broad intellectual culture, as 
much cheerfulness, tender sympathy, and un self- 
fish devotion to moral principle as I have ever 
found, I have found among Materialists. 

However, if any logical evidence for con- 
tinued existence under favorable conditions can 
be produced, all true and sensible men and wo- 
men in the ranks of Infidelity will welcome it. 
As to the Spiritualists, although I am not of 
them, I am with them in sympathy for their 



POPULAR OBJECTIONS TO INFIDELITY. 241 

Liberalism. I wish to thank them for the great 
work they have done in the cause of liberty and 
progress, and I cheerfully testify to the sincerity 
of their leaders, and to the unmistakable genu- 
ineness of many of the singular phenomena which 
form the basis of their philosophy. These phe- 
nomena are now attracting the attention of many 
learned scientists, and justly too, for they can 
no longer be concealed or ignored. Any thing 
which affects the cherished beliefs of millions of 
people should receive an impartial and thorough 
examination. The same scientists, both Christian 
and Materialistic, who have denounced all Spiritu- 
alistic phenomena as frauds, and disdained to 
examine them, have, in many cases, I am sorry 
to say, also ignored the facts of Phrenology. 
Now, whether our Spiritualistic friends succeed 
in proving immortality or not, I hope that none 
of us will ever forget to be true Liberals. Let 
us never scorn the most trivial fact in nature if 
it can throw any light upon the great problems 
of human happiness. Let us learn all we can. 



242 THE BRAIN AND THE BIBLE. 

If a future existence is ever demonstrated to be 
true, the credit will be due to science, not un- 
reasoning faith. And if at death we should end 
our only life, I say with Ingersoll : " Next to 
eternal joy, next to being forever with those we 
love and those who have loved us, next to that, 
is to be wrapt in the dreamless drapery of 
eternal peace. Next to eternal life is eternal 
sleep. Upon the shadowy shore of death the 
sea of trouble casts no wave. Eyes that have 
been curtained by the everlasting dark, will 
never know again the burning touch of tears. 
Lips touched by eternal silence will never speak 
again the broken words of grief. Hearts of dust 
do not break. The dead do not weep. Within 
the tomb no veiled and weeping sorrow sits, and 
in the rayless gloom is crouched no shuddering 
fear." 



OUR SUBSTITUTE FOB CHRISTIANITY. 243 

CHAPTER XI. 

OUR SUBSTITUTE FOR CHRISTIANITY. 

T T is customary for Christians to point with 
■*- pricle to the beautiful moral precepts of the 
Bible, and then to turn indignantly upon In- 
fidels with the question, " What can you give 
us in the place of this book?" In reply, I 
would ask, when have we ever proposed to de- 
stroy it? Have we- ever declared that the Bible 
should be burned, or that the human mind 
should be thrown into chaos as to the duties 
and responsibilities of life? On the contrary, 
we accept all pretended Revelations for all they 
are worth, as monuments of the world's early 
thought, and especially do we wish to preserve 
and cherish all. the good they contain. But 
theologians have no right to define the Bible or 
Christianity as the origin and source of all the 
principles of virtue, and then to charge us with 



244 THE BRAIN AND THE BIBLE. 

the desire to sweep it all away. The moral 
beauties of the Christian religion were not born 
of any creed, and belong to no one nation. 
They were all taught by people who lived be- 
fore the Christian era, and were largely inter- 
woven with nearly all of the ancient supersti- 
tions. On a priori grounds alone we should be 
justified in regarding this as highly probable, 
for we have overwhelming phrenological evidence 
to-day that the impulses to morality were de- 
veloped by the experiences of the primitive 
races, and hence that they must have been reg- 
istered in the brain thousands of years before 
even the earliest agglutination of Judaism. 
The skulls of antiquity which have been ex- 
humed afford proofs of this, which, like the rec- 
ords of the rocks, can no longer admit of the 
slightest doubt. For example, many of the old 
Egyptian, Greek, and Roman crania, indicate a 
very high order of moral development, and if 
those nations had had the benefits of modern 
science, they would doubtless have evolved a 



OUR SUBSTITUTE FOR CHRISTIANITY. 245 

civilization which would put to the blush any 
that has been known since the advent of Christ- 
ianity. And even as it was, with their limited 
advantages, look at the magnificent culture of 
pagan Greece and Rome. True, they had their 
vices, but so have we to-day ; and if the ab- 
sence of flagrant vices and crimes should be 
necessary to entitle a nation to be called civil- 
ized, what would future historians say of us ? 
However, the immorality of the ancient pagans, 
as compared with their virtues, has been greatly 
exaggerated, and the fact can not be disputed 
away that every moral principle asserted by the 
Church to have been original with Christ, was 
not only proclaimed centuries before he was 
born, but by people who lived independently of, 
and even prior to, the Jews. This matter is set 
at rest by facts of established history as well as 
by the most recent archaeological researches. 

In opposing Christianity, therefore, as a 
religious system, we denounce simply its per- 
nicious doctrines and absurd dogmas which are 



246 THE BRAIN AND THE BIBLE. 

contradicted by science and plainly inimical to 
the highest happiness of mankind. Among 
these are chiefly the existence of a personal 
God and a personal Devil, the fall of man, the 
scheme of salvation bv faith, and endless tor- 
ment to those who reject Christ as a divine 
savior. It is these superstitions, together with 
the institutions founded upon them, which con- 
stitute Christianity a distinct system of religion, 
and, I repeat, it is these alone which Infidelity 
discredits and desires to supersede. 

As a substitute for the hypothesis of a per- 
sonal creator, we submit the proposition that the 
universe in its entirety is eternal and self-exist- 
ent. Instead of ascribing the wonderful phe^ 
nomena of nature to a cause even more inex- 
plicable than the phenomena themselves, we 
regard the universe as the self-contained cause 
of its activities, in the same general sense that 
theologians imagine God as the self-contained 
cause of his operations. We hold that this is 
the only reasonable view, from the fact that 



OUR SUBSTITUTE FOR CHRISTIANITY. 247 



every form of argument indicating the necessity 
of an antecedent or creative cause of nature, 
would also imply the necessity of an antecedent 
cause of that creator. We are, therefore, logi- 
cally driven to the conclusion that matter con- 
tains within itself the potency to produce all the 
effects which we be hold. 

It is idle for Christians to complain that 
Materialism degrades man to the level of bricks 
and mortar. Properly denned, our principles not 
only detract nothing from man, but, on the con- 
trary, give him a greater dignity than he has 
ever enjoyed hitherto. On this point, Mr. Un- 
derwood well says : 

"No wonder theologians bestow upon matter 
so many bad names when they have divested it 
of its noblest powers and capacities in order to 
enhance the greatness of a being who is supposed 
to act through it. In their estimation, it is 
inert, powerless, contemptible, unless stirred like 
the pool of Bethescla by the potent touch of Je- 
hovah. Let them restore to it the powers of 



248 THE BRAIN AND THE BIBLE. 

which it has been robbed in order to enrich a 
being whose glory has ever been at the cost of 
the world and humanity, and possibly they will 
see less reason for maligning it. They may then 
be able to see in it those elements which in 
their ever-varying forms become not only the 
air they breathe, the water they drink, and the 
food which hunger craves; not only the amethyst 
and diamond, the violet, lily, and rosebud, but 
the ruby lip, the love-lit eye, the wonderful 
brain, and, in brief, the bodies and souls of 
the noblest beings that the earth has yet pro- 
duced." 

Our doctrine is simply this : Every force is 
a quality, condition, or activity of matter, hence 
neither is conceivable apart from some form of 
the other. All who admit this to be true are 
Materialists in every proper sense of the term. 
Theology, on the other hand, teaches the exist- 
ence of forces as entities wholly independent of 
matter, and the original creation of matter from 
nothing; ideas which are not only incomprehen- 



OUR SUBSTITUTE FOR CHRISTIANITY. 249 

sible, but directly opposed to every principle of 
reason. Thus, we recognize no such thing as 
absolutely dead matter. Every atom is endowed 
from eternity with some force, some phase or 
degree of intelligence, and the more refined, com- 
plex, and subtile the combination of matter, the 
higher will be the manifestation of life and men- 
tality. If any thing whatever could be eternally 
self-existent, surely living matter could be. We 
have thus no need of a creator. 

However, no one will admit more freely 
than the Infidel, that the fear of God often has 
the effect of a moral restraint, or that through 
a loving desire to please this imaginary being, 
many are encouraged to lead noble lives. But 
merely because this belief sometimes produces 
salutary effects, it does not necessarily follow that 
it is natural or healthful. The man who does 
right simply from fear of incurring the ill-will 
of the Deity, is at heart essentially dishonest, 
and, in the scale of moral development, no higher 
than a savage. The only truly noble aim in 



250 THE BRAIN AND THE BIBLE. 

right conduct is to increase the happiness of 
mankind; and he who does right from this mo- 
tive thereby directly strengthens his Benevolence, 
and tends to bring all his lower propensities un- 
der the control of his moral sentiments. Where- 
as, virtuous actions flowing simply from a desire 
to secure the favor of a being whom it would be 
impossible to harm, could only intensify our self- 
ish faculties, or, at the best, excite a blind and 
purposeless sense of justice. It is thus obvious 
that the incentives furnished by Humanitarianism 
to goodness and purity, are higher than those of 
theology. 

However, it will probably be objected that 
we have nothing to take the place of Christ as 
an ideal or model for our imitation. To this 
we would say that Phrenology reveals every 
principle regarding the supremacy of moral sen- 
timent and intellect that is to be found exem- 
plified in the character of Christ, with this 
advantage, that the teachings of Phrenology are 
much higher, inasmuch as they condemn and 



OUR SUBSTITUTE FOR CHRISTIANITY. 251 

refute the infamous system of revenge involved 
in Christ's doctrine of eternal retribution, and 
inculcate a principle of government which does 
not outrage the moral sense. It is true the ex- 
cuse is often made by liberal Christians that 
the doctrine of Hell is not warranted by a cor- 
rect interpretation of the Scriptures, and some 
assert that the passages supporting it can be 
shown to have been interpolated. If this can 
be established at all, it will only establish too 
much for the life of orthodoxy. For if the Bi- 
ble was written by divine inspiration, and God 
permitted those interpolations to paralyze man- 
kind with fear, and for eighteen centuries to 
redden the earth with blood, how can it be said 
that he is less responsible for the misunder- 
standing of his will than if he had written the 
interpolated words with his own hand? The 
orthodox masses still cherish this souvenir of 
our quadrupedal ancestry, and, for the most 
part, undoubtedly believe it. This is a sufficient 
reason for our opposing it. 



252 THE BRAIN AND THE BIBLE. 

Those who would be interested in a further 
explanation of the phrenological theory of morcil 
government, will find much of value pertaining 
to the subject in George Combe's " Constitution 
of Man," the best book, in my opinion, ever 
written by a theist. If the words Deity and 
Creative Wisdom, employed by Mr. Combe, 
were replaced by the terms ]STature and Evolu- 
tion, this remarkable work would be almost a 
complete exposition of the highest Materialistic 
philosophy. Mr. Combe was a Unitarian, and 
an Infidel to the orthodoxy of his time, and 
while we do not indorse his theism to-day, we 
must acknowledge our great indebtedness to him 
for his splendid contributions to the cause of 
humanity. For myself, I gladly take this op- 
portunity to say that I regard him as one of 
the noblest men the world has yet produced. 

To secure an object of worship, there is no 
need to anthropomorphize the absolute, and bow 
down to the unknown. And since the qualities 
Christians admire in their conceptions of Deity 



OUR SUBSTITUTE FOR CHRISTIANITY. 253 

are simply the best elements of human nature, 
we hold that the chief object of our reverence 
and respect, should be the ideal man, as revealed 
to us by mental science, while humanity should 
receive all our labor and affection. In order to 
love a conceptional God, the individual must 
first possess a moral nature ; but how much 
more deeply and intensely his sympathies will 
respond when, instead of catering to the imag- 
inary caprices of an infinite Omnipotence, he 
turns to the suffering millions of his fellow men. 
It is often asserted that we may love both God 
and humanity. True ; but no theist can fully 
appreciate his duty to those around him until 
he realizes the dependence of man upon him- 
self. 

God is but a shadow. Man is the sub- 
stance. For the imaginary we would substitute 
the real. For the invisible we would give the 
visible. In the place of theology, anthropology. 

Rejecting the notion that a Devil, or fallen 
angel, is the originator of the disorder and 



254 THE BRAIN AND THE BIBLE. 

misery in this world, we hold that what is called 
evil is simply the result of non-adjustment to 
our environments. There is no such thing as 
evil in the abstract. It is always relative, and 
quite frequently the very circumstances and con- 
ditions which operate adversely to one person 
result in great good to another. 

In place of the belief that sin first entered 
the human " heart" through Satan, and that 
malignant spirits now influence men to do 
wrong, we submit the entire facts of phrenolog- 
ical science, which prove that the depravity in 
human nature is due entirely to conditions of 
cerebral development and susceptibility. In a 
word, that organization determines character. 

Instead of the doctrine that man is now in 
a "fallen state," and incapable of attaining the 
highest moral development without the aid of 
supernatural forces, we are prepared to show by 
indisputable facts of history, as well as by the 
demonstrations of science, that the human race 
has risen, not fallen, and that instead of super- 



OUR SUBSTITUTE FOR CHRISTIANITY. 255 

natural aids to development, all that is necessary 
is obedience to the laws or methods of nature. 
To this end, we would encourage a popular 
study of anthropology in general, but especially 
Phrenology. We would have young persons 
made as familiar with the laws of marriage 
adaptation, hereditary transmission, sexual physi- 
ology, mental development, hygiene, etc., etc., as 
they now are with the details of their super- 
natural creeds. 

It is a vain excuse to say that only a small 
proportion of the people would ever be interested 
in these subjects. The difficulty now is that the 
minds of the people are too greatly warped and 
misled by the chimerical doctrines of the Bible 
to be able to appreciate anthropology. But let 
the masses be once entirely freed from theologi- 
cal views of life, and taught the true sources of 
happiness, and we shall see a revolution in soci- 
ology. When the people once discover what ad- 
vantages are to be gained by a knowledge of 
these things, they can not fail to be interested 



266 THE BRAIN AND THE BIBLE. 

in them. If governed by selfish motives alone, 
they could not do otherwise. And then, when 
the conditions of bodily and mental health are 
understood, it will be but a short step to the 
observance of them. The day will come when 
men and women will be ashamed to be the par- 
ents of such mental and physical dwarfs as the 
majority of children are to-day. Public opinion 
will be brought to bear on the subject of senseless 
marriages, and it will have greater effect than 
any of the ghostly terrors of theology. We shall 
then have fewer children and fuller orbed, for 
they will be the offspring of a purer love, and 
will be governed by reason and kindness, instead 
of a whip in this world and threats of endless 
torment after death. 

And here allow me to remark that Material- 
ism gives no encouragement to vice, and no sanc- 
tion to laxity in punishing criminals. In sug- 
gesting reform in the present s}^stem of criminal 
legislation and management of children, we refer 
only to the question of method. Capital pun- 



OUR SUBSTITUTE FOR CHRISTIANITY. 257 

ishment, the doctrine of Hell, and violence to 
children, all belong together. They were all 
born of that part of the brain which man has in 
common with hyenas and snakes. To adopt an 
illustration from Combe, if one dog steals a bone 
from another, Combativeness and Destructiveness 
are immediately excited in the owner of the 
bone, and (provided he has the requisite physical 
endowments,) he proceeds to inflict a severe 
chastisement upon the thief, after which, he sets 
him loose without any inquiry into the causes 
which led to the offense, and without any 
thought as to the ultimate consequences to the 
offender. Men act on the same principle. If a 
burglary or murder is committed and the culprit 
arrested, a trial is immediately instituted with 
the sole view of ascertaining his guilt. And if 
the evidence is found sufficient, the offender is 
simply ordered to be flogged, fined, imprisoned, 
banished, or hanged, as the case may be, and, 
except in the event of the death penalty, after 
the infliction of the punishment, the culprit is 



258 THE BBATN AND THE BIBLE. 

turned adrift upon society, perhaps soon to repeat 
his crime with more malice in his heart and 
with less respect for the law than he ever felt 
before. 

What we would substitute for this animal 
retaliation, is a kind of imprisonment and com- 
pulsory subjection to useful labor and elevating 
influences, which should be modified according 
to the causes of the crime and with a purpose 
of improving the criminal. Only those who are 
unacquainted with the principles of mental sci- 
ence will object that such a method would not 
be as efficient as the one commonly practiced 
now. To be sure, the reform we .are advocating 
relates especially to capital punishment and the 
whipping of children. Whatever penalties are 
inflicted, however, should undoubtedly be exe- 
cuted with great thoroughness and care. But 
we may be certain that the animal method 
arouses only the basest instincts of the mind, 
while the moral system appeals to the highest 
faculties. 



OUR SUBSTITUTE FOR CHRISTIANITY. 259 

Perhaps the most plausible objection to our 
theory of punishment is, that many individuals 
are too brutal to be susceptible to any moral in- 
fluence. This we admit; but can the Bible do 
any more for such cases than we? Does the 
Church convert or restrain idiots or madmen ? 
For all incorrigible subjects we suggest perma- 
nent confinement, and there can be no excuse 
for willful violence to such unfortunate beings. 
Conversation with criminals will reveal the fact 
that to the average wrongdoer the prospect of 
imprisonment for life is quite as much of a re- 
straint as the gallows, and the real secret of the 
popular desire for capital punishment is a thirst 
for revenge, which is fostered and encouraged by 
the spirit of orthodoxy. 

However, I do not wish to appear dogmatic 
in these remarks, and I freely admit that very 
many persons uphold capital punishment from a 
sincere conviction that it is necessary for the 
protection of society. But whether it is neces- 
sary or not in our present stage of development, 



260 THE BRAIN AND THE BIBLE. 

there can surely be no harm in discussing the 
subject from a philosophical point of view, and 
acquainting ourselves with a principle which it 
will be our duty to observe whenever and 
wherever our civilization shall render it prac- 
ticable. 

I can also anticipate a denial from many 
readers, that the "spirit of orthodoxy" promotes 
cruelty and violence. In debating the subject 
of Christianity its advocates are accustomed to 
define it as the doctrine of a pure life; the 
principle of universal love and forgiveness, etc. 
But when they teach it from the pulpit or in 
their ecclesiastical tribunals, it becomes trans- 
formed into a system of dogmas, many of which 
have not only no connection with any principle 
of morality, but are simply infamous and deadly. 
When Christians expound their religion let them 
spurn every disguise and appear under their 
dual flag. We do not deny that there is a 
noble and lofty side to Christianity, but when 
pure water flows into a polluted stream, the 



OUR SUBSTITUTE FOR CHRISTIANITY. 261 

whole becomes defiled. Thus, while the Bible 
teaches forgiveness, the doctrine that unbelievers 
are deserving of eternal pain is adapted only 
to distort and undermine every idea of true 
justice. How can a man have any clear con- 
ception of equity who is educated to sympathize 
with such a dogma? Indeed, how can Christ- 
ians be expected to improve on the example set 
them by their Master? Can they forgive and 
love their enemies when thev believe that Christ 
is going to damn his forever? Belief in such 
notions regarding man's responsibility to a sup- 
posed Creator, is sure to foster sympathy with 
them. And what men love they will be likely 
to practice, so that those who favor an infamous 
punishment in another and endless existence, 
will be almost certain to have perverted and 
unjust views regarding methods of government 
in the affairs of this world. 

Thus, instead of salvation from Hell in an 
imaginary hereafter, by faith in the dogmas of 
the Church, we offer salvation from the evils in 



262 THE BRAIN AND THE BIBLE. 

this world by patient and industrious attention to 
the conditions of development, health, and happi- 
ness, as revealed by science. Instead of vainly 
trying to restrain men from vice and crime by 
the fear of punishment after death, we would 
teach them the certainty with which they will 
be punished in this world for every essentially 
immoral act they commit. We would teach 
them that whether their sins are found out or 
not, they can not do wrong without robbing 
themselves and stepping backward toward the 
old four-footed life. And if we fail to produce 
any evidence of a heaven of perpetual joy, we 
can at least offer the happy assurance that not 
one poor human soul will ever suffer an eternity 
of pain. 

Properly defined, religion means simply the 
bond between man and the highest object which 
he can love, and toward which he can feel a 
sense of duty sufficiently strong to discipline all 
his faculties, and prescribe to him a rule of life. 
Hence, it is right that in this sense we should 



OUR SUBSTITUTE FOR CHRISTIANITY. 263 

have a religion. But instead of the God of the 
Bible as the chief object of our consideration, 
we would devote our efforts to our fellow men, 
and make the sense of our obligation to them, 
if not to ourselves, curb every tendency to evil. 
Those who could be insensible to such a religion 
as this, would be callous to every thing good in 
the religion of Christ. There can be no really 
lofty motive in worshiping a conditionless, infin- 
ite being of whom we can form no clear concep- 
tion, or at least whom we could neither benefit 
nor injure. But we can add to the happiness 
of mankind, and in so doing we exercise all our 
highest and noblest powers. This, then, is our 
substitute. Instead of God, we would live and 
labor for mankind. Instead of Christianity, the 
Religion of Humanity. 

FINIS. 



61- 









M 



*i 












^1 



■ 










